Both have a foundation in faith, not reason. That's something the Darwinists never admitted to.
My original comment was a dumb thing to say, and not true. The science types I've known are very open to reason, it's just that creationists don't offer any. I was trying to get creationists to see themselves in the mirror, and I failed. That would be an impossible task.
What creationists refuse to recognize is that it takes zero faith to accept evolution. The evidence is overwelming. Instead they get hung up on the original creation of life, which by definition was *not* evolution, and about which science doesn't know much about.
That's the biggest difference between science and faith. Science will admit what it does not know, while the faithful know everything.
I've gone on too long already. I'm sure your mind closed up at the top somewhere.
Nonsense. If the evidence was overwhelming, the debate would have been over long ago.
"That's the biggest difference between science and faith. Science will admit what it does not know, while the faithful know everything."
Funny considering how scientists will stridently defend their pet theories even if proven wrong. Max Planck put it best:
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
--Max Planck