I think most people here in this discussion are wrong, pro- and anti-evolution.
We're comparing apples to oranges. A scientist can't prove God exists, and especially can't prove that a God created anything, because that creation would probably break every rule of physics we operate under (unless God created us through evolution and sat around for billions of years waiting for his creation to come to fruition)
A scientist must operate and make conclusions under the system of physical rules and parameters that exist in our world and the universe. In the question of our existence, evolution is the only scientific explanation that conforms to the physical rules of the universe as we understand them. (Though the small matter of where the first matter (or original Big Bang matter) originated from remains teasingly absent.
A philosopher can prove God does or does not exist, but he's going to use more than science, if he uses any at all, to prove his point.
We're all making the mistake of confusing data collection and data analysis (science)with philosophy, belief, and ethics. Can raw data from a science experiment tell us whether we should go to war, whether or not to enact the death penalty, who to vote for? NO. Then how could science teach us in what to believe in? Science knows no morality, no ethics,...it is just the cold analysis of raw data.
A creationist can't prove an evolutionist wrong (because he's generally right within his scientific (only) parameters). An evolutionist can't prove a creationist wrong, because a creationist believes in a transcendent God and transcendent set of laws of physics.
An evolutionist can't accept rules outside of those scientifically proven, so he can't accept creationism as a scientific theory. It is a philosophy or a belief, two areas the scientist should stay out of.
This is what creationists (and real scientists) should be most upset by: that evolutionists and scientists, are attempting to become moralists, to mix morality and ethics into their hypothesis and conclusions, areas in which they have NO BUSINESS.
Absolutely correct
This is what creationists (and real scientists) should be most upset by: that evolutionists and scientists, are attempting to become moralists, to mix morality and ethics into their hypothesis and conclusions, areas in which they have NO BUSINESS.
I have yet to talk to a scientist, or a socalled "evolutionist" that claims that evolution can give you any sort of morality. It is a scientific theory, nothing more, and nothing less, if someone uses that theory for the basis of their morality, they are an idiot, science does not claim any type of morality, let alone a moral superiority of any type.
Morality is a philisophical, even a religious area, and science has no wanting, nor need to be the basis of anyones morality.
To say that someone bases their morality on the understanding of evolution is idiotic, if not moronic in the extreme.