Evolutionism vs Creationism

The origin of the universe and the life itself was until very recently a theological subject. With the evolution of human knowledge and technology, scientists started to study it in their field. However, as I tried to show, theology still may very easily swallow science in this subject. I've never tried to claim Creationism as a scientific theory and that doesn't make it any less reasonable, possible or "theoretical". As there are scientific theories, there are philosophical theories as valid or more than the scientific ones. They just approach different questions or the same questions from different perspectives. In this last scenario is possible that one may even try to disprove the other. For example, if I claimed that God didn't create life with the capacity of evolving, science could try to disprove this claim. Or if science claimed that organisms evolve only through random mutations, philosophy may try to disprove this too, based, for instances, on the ludicrous chance of that to happen. However, I claimed that God created the Universe 6000 years ago and after a while he decided to change some of its characteristics, so it seemed that it all started a few billion years back in an explosion. You can't approach this with science anymore. All the scientific proofs you present in favor of the Bing Bang and Evolution theory will just fall into the theological theory I presented. What you can do is try to disprove it from a theological perspective. Yet, what I wrote was: "Creationism is a valid theory that can't be refuted by science (...)" Philosophical theory: http://en.wikipedia.org... Theory and Theology: http://www.westminsterconfession.org... I didn't want to compare Creationism with Evolution. I just wanted to show how fragile evolution is with a theological approach and how science can't disprove Creationism. However, I can use every single scientific evidence there is, in favor and "con" Evolution, to support my theory. All the proofs pro Evolution support God's intention to create the illusion of Evolution and an origin in a distant past. All the proofs "con" Evolution, like the lack of transitional fossils and the unreliability of random mutations being able to produce such complex organisms, support that God didn't think or care much about it when he made the changes to create the illusion; or that God didn't want to create a perfect puzzle with all the pieces, so scientists couldn't claim it as truth and continue to waste their lives studying it; 2. Creationism shall be taught in schools, as should Religion. Creationism and Evolution are two possible theories to explain the origin of life. Even if the scientific nature of Creationism is arguable, is undeniable that it is a plausible and world wide accepted theory. There may be some unreasonable variations of Creationism, but the possibility of a creator God is irrefutable. I think only in America Creationism is presented as a scientific theory. In my country it is taught as a valid theological theory, that plays in a different plan than science. Teaching different theories to explain the same event is also very important. It shows children that the human knowledge and science are not absolute and are far from discovering all the mysteries of the universe. It gives them the opportunity to look at this with a much more opened mind and it also teaches them the relativity of truth. In my experience what disappointed me, wasn't the 10 minutes we lost with Creationism, but how evolution was presented as a finished theory. However, that's something for the third topic. Why should Religion also be taught in school? The benefits of learning several religions in school are overwhelming. Only by teaching the existence of a few religions from a general view, we widen our children views, options and understandings immensely. Usually people are confined to their parents religion, which often is the single prominent religion in their society, that they learn through a very partial view. Like my opponent, who has Indian parents and follows Sikhism, an Indian religion, probably like his parents. Teaching several religions through an impartial and rational scholar perspective give children a much wider range of options, while helping them to better understand things about humankind and their and the others' cultures. It's obviously impossible to offer a complete coverage over every religion at a deep level, but that's never the goal of school. It just tries to give the students enough tools and information, so they can make well grounded decisions, like deepening their knowledge in one or other subject they enjoyed and with which they identified themselves more. In my country it's not an obligatory subject, but it's optional. From my personal experience I only have to be thankful for it. Everyone on my class was interested and wanted to learn, which promoted great debates and helped me a lot. We had a Muslim that helped us to better understand his religion and culture, while another one of my friends, who was completely into Buddhism, ended up to go to Tibet in a gap year. Keeping religion out of school just promotes ignorance and incomprehension. Religion takes a major role in human's history, culture, morals, beliefs, understanding of the world, etc. Religion has a place in every society and in every single one of us. Religion may help us understand who we are and how to deal with our life and with our problems. Religion may help us understand our ancestors, relating ourselves with them and learning with them. Religion teaches us the importance of our spirituality and how to work it. Religion may help us understand and respect each other. Religion may teach us how to approach other cultures problems and morals. etc. It's irrefutable the importance that religion has to the humankind and it's a shame that some secular societies, due to ignorance/ fear/vengeance, are trying to kick it to a second plan and leave it out of schools. 3. Many evolutionists criticize Creationists claiming they are close minded and that their faith is an excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence, while doing the exact same thing in regard to their own BELIEVES. You're probably one of them! History summary: In Europe, after the decline of the "democratic" Greek heydays, education and science started to be restrained again by the dictatorships that came to replace it. It's much easier to impose these kind of regimes in bad informed and educated societies, therefore the access to knowledge was very limited, reaching its most extreme point during the middle ages. During this period the monarchies of Europe allied themselves to the Catholic Church and suppressed and manipulated their people through religious dogmas and threats, persecuting and executing scientists and other scholars that tried to disprove their claims, which created a deep grudge against the Catholic Church inside the scientific community. However all the educated scientists could very well separate Christianity and Religion from what the men inside the Catholic Church were trying to impose and all of them remained religious or theistic (probably with some exceptions...) Then the black death happened and certain conditions were created to begin a new Era, which started as a movement to recover the ideologies from the Greek and Roman prosperous ages in Italy. The Renaissance Period, where God started to lose His position in the center of man's attention, being replaced by the man himself. Science started to gain power again and tension was raised between scholars and the Catholic Church, leading to the creation of new Protestant Churches. The increasingly fast advancement of science, that started in this period, culminated in the Industrial Revolution in England, that wasn't associated to the Catholic Church anymore and which scientific community was able to breath freely. The English were on the top of the world, with the biggest and strongest empire, supported by the strongest industry. New companies were being created every day and the ones that couldn't follow the technological advancements were left behind. It was in this context that Darwinism appeared, a theory based on the survival of the fittest that disclaimed the word from the sacred Book of God. A theory that made possible for man to answer the questions that only God had access to. This originated a strong movement inside the English bourgeoisie, composed by the most powerful and rich man in the world. They ingenuously realized that they didn't need God anymore, they had conquered the world and disproved God's word and God itself. This movement was quite well accepted by the science community around Europe, because it gave them support to fight against the oppressive Church, disclaiming the truthfulness of the word of God. So, being very far from being a finished theory, Darwinism spread as an irrefutable theory inside the scientific community, because it gave Science the opportunity to pass from a position of submission to a position of open war against the oppressive Church. The Church naturally didn't take this well and instead of trying be reasonable and taking it to their theological field, started to fight science with science, which ended in defeats, one after another. However, being used as a weapon has led the evolution theory to be always looked with special careful inside of the scientific community. While almost all scientific theories are usually bombed with questions and refutations, the evolution theory was always treated almost as irrefutable and as finished. Since part of the community was afraid that if it was presented as incomplete, it would raise to many doubts and it might tilt the balance to the religious side again. I don't have more characters left, I will conclude my reasoning in the next round. Good luck!