Also, unless you are a postmodern liberal, not all explanations are equivalent.
As I have repeatedly tried to impress upon you to obviously no discernible effect; the scientific explanation is of USE.
Creationism is of no use.
Nobody ever creates anything of value using creationism.
An accurate model that allows one to explain data and make predictions, the scientific method, creates value every day.
So “even” the two explanations are not.
One explanation leads to further knowledge and value.
The other leads nowhere, it is an intellectual dead end.
Which is perhaps one of the reasons why the more educated a person is the less likely they are to be a creationist.
Yeah, God made them from the dust of the earth as He told us He did in Genesis. So, scientists have made up explanations about where they think that extinct bipedal apes came from? Big deal.
Or a reason as to why God thought it necessary to create them? Or what function they served?
Fine. You criticize creationism for not having answers to those questions. What's science's answer to those questions? Why did they evolve? What function did they serve?
As I have repeatedly tried to impress upon you to obviously no discernible effect; the scientific explanation is of USE.
Exactly what scientific use is there in the *scientific* explanation of where bipedal apes came from? How does that affect future research? How does that affect anyone's every day life? What does it help scientists predict about the next stage in evolutionary development? What's mankind's next stage in evolution?