Darwin's theory is successful because it is of use. Creationism is useless.
Science is based upon using physical causes to explain physical phenomena. You can cry all you want to about how such is a “materialist presupposition” - but it is what makes science of use.
If the cause of a phenomena is material - then it is predictable, replicable and understandable.
If the cause of a phenomena is supernatural - then it is not predictable or replicable and not understandable - and thus it is of absolutely no use in terms of further knowledge discover or useful application.
So have you figured out what the physical cause of the evolution you say you accept is yet?
Will you ever?
What if there IS no "physical cause?" Have you ever entertained that possibility?
What if the driver of evolution is actually a spiritual cause?
Which is do believe is what Genesis 1 asserts. Physical, "material" nature does not show up until Genesis 2.
So, what is going on in Genesis 1? To me, it is the spiritual layout, or blueprint, for what ensues in Genesis 2. The analogy from physics is that Genesis 1 refers to whatever was loaded into the Singularity — the Word of God, Logos Alpha to Omega — In the Beginning.
The "Logos Alpha–Omega" part guarantees that our universe, as created by God, was originally designed to unfold — or "evolve" — in physical space and time. Indeed, that was God's Plan in the Beginning. That He already knows the End — the purpose and goal of His Creation — does not affect its free development "In-Between" its Beginning and End, which has been called (by Aristotle), the Immanent Cause of everything that happens, or could happen, in physical Nature.
In other words, God did not create an "overly-determined" universe. There are rules and guides to the system; but within those constraints, there is every possible scope for novelty to emerge in physical nature, via an evolutionary process.
An analogy from physics: the relations between the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The first law — "matter cannot be either created nor destroyed" — is a conservation principle. It refers to that which does not ever change over time. It is, in short, a universal principle.
The second law — the law of entropy — refers to that in nature which is capable of changing. Note the second law holds that all systems in nature have an inherent tendency to become disordered over time. And all would do so, if there were no other operative principle in the universe to counteract this tendency.
BTW, the Singularity was "discovered" by Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, a Jesuit priest. The Singularity is what "blew up" in the Big Bang; and evidently is the basic foundation for the inflationary expansion of the universe ever since — which is decidedly an evolutionary process in space and time.
But of course, Lemaître was perhaps just another superstitious Christian creationist in your book. Maybe we can also say this of Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian monk who just happens to be the father of the science of genetics, which gave Darwin so many bright ideas.
* * * * * * *
Anyhoot, I don't know if any of the above is at all helpful to you, dear allmendream. All I can say is I'm not here to "tell you what to think," but rather to "show you where to look." You can go look if you want to.
I do hope you will, dear brother in Christ! Thank you ever so much for writing!
What part of evolution is replicable? Testable? What real life observations of evolution in action have been made that are not based on forensic evidence and extrapolation?
OK, predict the next step in the evolution of any man or animal of your choice?
If the cause of a phenomena is supernatural - then it is not predictable or replicable and not understandable - and thus it is of absolutely no use in terms of further knowledge discover or useful application.
Sounds like you just described evolution there.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
To say Creationism is useless is to say that Christianity is useless.
I know of no Christian who does not, as an article of faith, believe that God created the Universe.
Do you?
Who gave you the authority to hijack the lexicon and arbitrarily alter the meaning of terms? That’s the tactic of those who look to smear a whole people by demeaning their identity. 0bamatrons and admirers of Goebbels would applaud your calumny. Not many others.
What is the definition of Creationism offered by the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, revised edition 2003? Does it differ materially from other definitions?
Science, as it has been developed by our Judeo-Christian Western Civilization is successful because it is of use. So useful, in fact, that I claim it to be Judeo-Christianity’s happiest inspiration.
Some people have seized upon the readily observable phenomena of Natural Selection and have projected it into the religion of Darwinism; with “Evolution” as its most holy of sacraments. Like most religions, Darwinism is jealous of other religions. Unlike the Judeo-Christian Tradition, Darwinism has not learned to control its jealousy, so it seeks to drive Christianity not only from the public schools, but entirely from the public common.
The prohibition against the establishment of religion is an onus that falls entirely on the state. Government may not establish a religion or prohibit its free exercise. The prohibition may not act on individuals or private institutions. The Constitution limits and defines the powers only of government.