Replies

No one doubts that there is minor evolution within species. That has been seen too many times to count. What is at issue is the General Theory of Evolution. That is so full of scientific holes that it's only held together by blind faith. No one has seen any evidence of one species evolving into another, still less evolving into ALL the species that now exist. No one can explain how living creatures could develop eyes, legs, wings, or similar features, which would have no survival value for millions of years until they were fully developed. No one can explain how incredibly complex organic molecules could develop out of some undifferentiated "soup," when none of these DNA particles can continue to exist without interacting with all the other particles. And so forth.

Creationism is a pseudo-science that grew up mainly for legal reasons. The courts said that only science, not religion, could be taught in the public schools. This provoked a response that the Genesis account is scientific, which is something of a distortion. This is not to say that it isn't true, but it's not science in the usual sense of the word. You can't blame the creationists for doing what they did. Rather the fault was with the courts, for banning God, the Bible, and morality from the schools. That was a disastrous and unconstitutional error.

Intelligent design theory, on the other hand, is science. And it makes more sense than the general theory of evolution.

You can't prove the truths of Christianity by scientific method. It's a matter of revelation and belief. But you can demonstrate that the hypothesis that the universe was created by an intelligent designer is much likelier than the hypothesis that it arose by blind chance. There are just too many problems for Darwin's theory to hold up.

No one has seen any evidence of one species evolving into another,

Ever looked at some of the DNA work going on today?
Care to explain some of what is found insofar as identical strands being found in *different* species?
Intelligent design theory, on the other hand, is science.
Stagnant view - implies NO changes since day one and also implies that God doesn't trust his own judgement in setting the basic ground rules for the way physics and chemistry work and INSTEAD he 'magically' deems that these creatures walk the earth. This also flies in the face ofd the fact that BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES are pretty much common throughout the animal and plant kingdoms ...
I rather think he created some wonderful building blocks from which ALL life flowed ...