[Codo]

helene_t, on Dec 13 2007, 08:47 PM, said:

Edmunte1, on Dec 12 2007, 01:04 AM, said:

I'm not saying that Scientific Creationism is a better theory than Darwin's Evolution Theory, but it's a certain alternative.

Alternative for what purpose? Maybe for the layperson who doesn't aspire to understand evolution but nevertheless feels a need to have an "explanation", any pseudo-scientific explanation would do.

But if the brighter pupils at elementary school ask questions starting with "why?", there is no alternative to natural selection. A few alternatives like Lamarchism have been proposed but they failed.

And if a biology teacher is supposed just to teach dump facts like "insects have six legs and don't ask me why and don't ask me what justifies the notion of the category 'insects' ", then you're not teaching any theory at all.

Hi Helene,

I think you are walking on quite thin ice.

I do BELIEVE in Evolution, but I have not checked it myself. Did you? So for the most of us, even science is a place where we BELIEVE the authors. We do not check their results. We can check that Newtons gravity was correct, at least we see apples falll down. But at most 0,00001 % of us can check that Einstein was right. We simply believe.

And if you think that the question "why" leads to natural selection, here are some "whys".

Elephants have no real enemy. So why did the nature build antilopes? Elephants are the "best" plant eating animals in Africa, there is no need for anitlopes.

Where is the sense in the majestic hairs of the male lion?

Why do dolphins look like they are smiling?

If you believe in Intelligent design, there is just one and very easy answer: God wanted it this way. If you believe in Evolution, the answers are a little more complex.

So maybe the question "why" does not lead us to the theory of evolution. There is just one single fact, which makes us believe in this theory: We have heard from many people who proved this theory and it did not fail. And we believe these people.

[kenberg]

It would be good if part of every child's education involved learning just how science goes about getting it right, how it updates its results, improves on previous explanations and so on. In 1952 I read the excellent "One, Two, Three, Infinity" by the physicist George Gamow. It would be a kick to go back and see how much has changed since then. I am pretty sure that the estimate of the age of the solar system has changed. Gamow was a prominent supporter of the Big Bang Theory of the Origin of the Universe but he gave fair coverage to the Steady State views of Hoyle and others. That's pretty much a settled issue now. And of course the central role of DNA was not yet known. A very good article I read, by an author I unfortunately cannot recall, posed the following question: Imagine that you are the publisher of a Physics journal in 1905 and you get a manuscript from an author claiming that Newton had it wrong and that really fundamental physical symmetries should allow for the interaction of space and time. How do you decide if this is to be taken seriously? Scientists really do get it right. Rockets land where they are supposed to (at least usually) and diseases get cured. Relativity finds acceptance, Intelligent Design gets hooted at.

Our kids must learn some scientific facts, no doubt about that. But more important, I think, is that they come to understand the general scientific outlook. The views of Einstein replace the views of Newton concerning the motion of the planets. In science, this updating in light of new information is considered a good thing, not heresy. Claims of cold fusion are examined and rejected, but the rejection is on experimental grounds not on authoritarian grounds. It's important for our future generations to understand this.

[helene_t]

Codo, on Dec 13 2007, 04:29 PM, said:

I do BELIEVE in Evolution, but I have not checked it myself. Did you?

I have found fossils myself, discussing the implications of finding particular fossils in particular layers with professional paleontologists. And as a researcher in statisticial genetics, evolutionary biology is among the fields on which my works is based. And I have explored some of the mathematical models used in evolutionary biology. But no, I haven't enough first-hand evidence myself to construct the details of the tree of life. For the most part I have to rely on literature.

Quote

So for the most of us, even science is a place where we BELIEVE the authors. We do not check their results.  We can check that Newtons gravity was correct, at least we see apples falll down. But at most 0,00001 % of us can check that Einstein was right. We simply believe.

To me there's a big difference between believing out of faith and believing (or "accepting" as I'd rather put it) out of the understanding of a scientific argument. There is no such thing as a valid argument by authority, Daniel Denett said. But there is such a thing as a valid argument.

Quote

Elephants have no real enemy. So why did the nature build antilopes? Elephants are the "best" plant eating animals in Africa, there is no need for antilopes.

You're right that there are many such "why" questions to which evolutionary biology does not give a simple, definite answers. (This one is not particularly difficult but I can't tell you why dolphins look as if they smile). But at least we can discuss the question. Without natural selection, the word "why" does not even make sense since we wouldn't have a clue what kind of properties a dolphin would need to have in order to exist.

Quote

There is just one single fact, which makes us believe in this theory: We have heard from many people who proved this theory and it did not fail. And we believe these people.

And some of us understand why the other theories failed. Of course, we still have to rely on the data that made them fail. If the advocate of the devil said that for all we know everything in the palaeontological museum could be artifacts, then we cannot discuss evolution. Then again, such an negative position would kill all intellectual activity (except for math). No reason to single out evolutionary biology.

[blackshoe]

luke warm, on Dec 13 2007, 06:01 AM, said:

i'm sure he was just stating his opinion... of course it's possible he's read all histories of the world written anywhere at anytime, i don't know... and it's possible he knows all religious people everywhere well enough to recognize their fear of the unknown

Hyperbole is a common tool used in writing to make a point. That first sentence ("History does not record...") is certainly hyperbole, and almost equally certainly meant as such. To infer from a use of this tool that "logic wasn't his strong suit" is a bit much, IMO. Be that as it may, the man's record seems to me to speak for itself.

As for what he knows, well, if I remember correctly, he also said, regarding life after death, "why worry about it? Soon enough, you will know". He knows. Has done, since 1988.

[luke warm]

blackshoe, on Dec 13 2007, 09:53 AM, said:

luke warm, on Dec 13 2007, 06:01 AM, said:

i'm sure he was just stating his opinion... of course it's possible he's read all histories of the world written anywhere at anytime, i don't know... and it's possible he knows all religious people everywhere well enough to recognize their fear of the unknown

Hyperbole is a common tool used in writing to make a point.

i agree... and it's also, sadly, a common tool used in debates (on BBF at least ) ... but i don't see what that has to do with what i said, it seems to me that you prove my point

Quote

Be that as it may, the man's record seems to me to speak for itself.

what record? his novels? scientology? his deep philosophical writings? i've already stated that he was a fine novelist, but his non-fiction arguments aren't long on logic

Quote

As for what he knows, well, if I remember correctly, he also said, regarding life after death, "why worry about it? Soon enough, you will know". He knows. Has done, since 1988.

well if all one need do is die to prove how much we religious folk fear the unknown, you're right

[mycroft]

So, is Scientific Creationism falsifiable? Does it predict, in an experimentable way, something?

Without those two properties, it may be decent belief, *it may even be right* - but it's not Science (it also has to explain all the data to be current Science, but it does).

The answer to all of the "why can't we just" questions is that in order for it to be Science, it must meet those three criteria. If it doesn't, then it isn't Science and should no more be taught in Science classes as Spanish (which is probably a good thing for certain people to learn, but it's not Science - and I wouldn't want people trying to teach me Science in Spanish class, either). I make an exception for using it to make the exact argument I'm making here - that it is an explanation, but since it can't be tested, falsified, or used for prediction, it doesn't meet the criteria for Science. That doesn't mean it's *wrong*, necessarily.

What science currently thinks is true may be - in fact, almost by definition must be in some cases - wrong. Like the etheric theory of light propagation, new data will be found that will invalidate the theory, and either new theories that fit all the data will either be found (like Maxwell's EM theory) or the theory will evolve to fit the data (as was the case with Keplerian/ Newtonian/ Einsteinian Mechanics).

Michael.
"Mind altering drugs are a crutch for people who can't handle reality." -- Albert Einstein
"Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle science fiction." -- Anonymous, so far as I know.

[hotShot]

Codo, on Dec 13 2007, 04:29 PM, said:

.....
And if you think that the question "why" leads to natural selection, here are some "whys".

Elephants have no real enemy. So why did the nature build antilopes? Elephants are the "best" plant eating animals in Africa, there is no need for anitlopes.

This is not quite true, elephants are the "worst" plant eating animals inside of woods and in areas with hills and mountains. Elephants need an enormous amount of food and have to spend most of the day eating. These are huge disadvantages and there are more. So there are more "best" plant eating animals around.

Quote

Where is the sense in the majestic hairs of the male lion?

The extra hair protects the lions neck in fights with other lions.

Quote

Why do dolphins look like they are smiling?
....

This is your interpretation of their look not your observation. Scientists need to know the difference.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on Dec 13 2007, 03:26 PM, said:

S
"Mind altering drugs are a crutch for people who can't handle reality." -- Albert Einstein
"Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle science fiction." -- Anonymous, so far as I know.

"Drugs will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no drugs." -- R. Crumb

[Winstonm]

"Why" is a philosophical question and outside the boundaries of scientific investigation. Why can neither be proven nor disproven - it is at best conjecture.

This is the main reason, IMO, that ID and creationism have no place in science education - these concepts do not deal with how, what, where but with why, and thus are in the realm of philosophy/religion but are not science.

Besides, the bible also says that 5 loaves and 5 fishes can feed a multidude, so why doesn't Pat Robertson go bug the math deparment for a while and leave biology alone?

[mikeh]

Codo, on Dec 13 2007, 09:29 AM, said:

And if you think that the question "why" leads to natural selection, here are some "whys".

Elephants have no real enemy. So why did the nature build antilopes? Elephants are the "best" plant eating animals in Africa, there is no need for anitlopes.

Where is the sense in the majestic hairs of the male lion?

Why do dolphins look like they are smiling?

If you believe in Intelligent design, there is just one and very easy answer: God wanted it this way. If you believe in Evolution, the answers are a little more complex.

So maybe the question "why" does not lead us to the theory of evolution. There is just one single fact, which makes us believe in this theory: We have heard from many people who proved this theory and it did not fail. And we believe these people.

I understand that you were probably oversimplifying in order to make a point, but:

1. Nature did not 'build' antelopes any more than nature 'built' homo sapiens or elephants. Species evolve in response to random change in genetic makeup, with the resulting mutations being winnowed by a number of mechanisms, the most widely discussed being natural selection, where mutations that render the individual 'mutant' more successful at reproduction will tend to propagate through the population (this seems to be more probable in a small, isolated sub-population, and it may be that environmental change will play a major role by affording previously unsuccessful mutations some advantage: a slow-moving creature that can tolerate higher salt in its aquatic environment may suddenly gain an advantage over stronger, faster variants when the water turns brackish, etc)

Once embarked upon an evolutionary course, some species tend to develope what we might describe as a form of tunnel vision. Thus elephants evolved for size, with sheer body mass (and tusks) as affording protection against most predators, whilst antelopes evolved for rapid motion, a prominent startle reflex, and agility.

While I am no zoologist, I also suspect that antelopes preferentially eat somewhat different vegetation than do elephants.

In short, they occupy different ecological niches, altho individual populations may share common environments.

And the idea that an elephant is a better herbivore than an antelope is, I suspect, a meaningless comparison. Both are, so far, 'good enough' to have survived ecological challenges. Both represent the current state of the evolution of their anscestral species. Neither represent the last word in herbivore evolution, unless either we totally screw up the world or some giant asteroid hits us in the geologically near future.

Neither species, nor any other, fulfills any 'need'. They do fill ecological niches, but that is not the same as thinking that 'nature' has 'needs'.

In a similar vein, the hairs of the male lion are the result of evolution, in which, presumably, male lions (or males in the predesscor species) gained competitive advantage over other males if they happened to possess a variant of genes coding for hair, such that they grew thicker, more 'magnificent' hair than their competitors for reproductive success. If that arose from enhanced survival in intra-species dominance contests, that is sufficient explanation.

As for the dolphin's smile: no doubt the curvature of their mouths arises from evolutionary pressures. Maybe the curved mouths reflects an underlying curvature of a jaw bone that in term affords more efficiency in catching or eating prey... or maybe results in slightly improved stream-lining and thus more efficient swimming. More importantly, we can rest assured that there is no evolutionary significance (to date) in the resemblance to a human smile.

And, the simplistic creationist or ID answer that god wanted things this way begs the question of why on earth (literally and figuratively) god could care. Religious people stop their thinking at this point: they don't presume to try to understand how a god functions (or why a god functions, let alone exists). And that is why ID and creationsim are ultimately unsatisfactory as explanations of ultimate causes. They proffer ideas that really amount to: stop thinking.

It may be that our brains are simply incapable of understanding ultimate causes. It may be that the very idea of ultimate cause is a meaningless artefact of the away our brain has evolved. But, even if so, that is no reason for us to abandon the exploration of ideas that has led us this far from superstition.

[barmar]

A few weeks ago I was in the dentist chair. Since there's often periods of waiting, I always bring a book. The book I happened to be reading was God is Not Great: How Religion Spoils Everything. When the dentist came in, he asked what I was reading this time. He then went on to tell me that he'd had a personal crisis last year, and turning to God helped him get through it.

I lost quite a bit of respect for someone I had considered an intelligent man. I'll keep going to him, as I have no complaint about his dental work and I don't feel like trying to find another dentist. But I can't help feeling sorry for someone who needs religion as a crutch like that.

[Codo]

barmar, on Dec 14 2007, 08:46 AM, said:

A few weeks ago I was in the dentist chair. Since there's often periods of waiting, I always bring a book. The book I happened to be reading was God is Not Great: How Religion Spoils Everything. When the dentist came in, he asked what I was reading this time. He then went on to tell me that he'd had a personal crisis last year, and turning to God helped him get through it.

I lost quite a bit of respect for someone I had considered an intelligent man. I'll keep going to him, as I have no complaint about his dental work and I don't feel like trying to find another dentist. But I can't help feeling sorry for someone who needs religion as a crutch like that.

I have (and hopefully showed here) a lot of respect for many atheists.

But what you wrote here was silly and reflected on you, not on your dentist.

He was able to search and find help in a personal crisis. And you lost respect because he needs a crutch while suffering?

I really feal sorry for someone with this point of view. It is arrogantly and narrowheaded to judge people in this way just because they don´t share our personal point of view.

[kenberg]

Codo, on Dec 14 2007, 02:33 AM, said:

barmar, on Dec 14 2007, 08:46 AM, said:

A few weeks ago I was in the dentist chair.  Since there's often periods of waiting, I always bring a book.  The book I happened to be reading was God is Not Great: How Religion Spoils Everything.  When the dentist came in, he asked what I was reading this time.  He then went on to tell me that he'd had a personal crisis last year, and turning to God helped him get through it.

I lost quite a bit of respect for someone I had considered an intelligent man.  I'll keep going to him, as I have no complaint about his dental work and I don't feel like trying to find another dentist.  But I can't help feeling sorry for someone who needs religion as a crutch like that.

I have (and hopefully showed here) a lot of respect for many atheists.

But what you wrote here was silly and reflected on you, not on your dentist.

He was able to search and find help in a personal crisis. And you lost respect because he needs a crutch while suffering?

I really feal sorry for someone with this point of view. It is arrogantly and narrowheaded to judge people in this way just because they don´t share our personal point of view.

As one of the atheists, or at least non-believers (I think of proclaimed atheists as sort of the Pat Robertsons of the non-believers) I second this view. In a crisis, or in day to day living, we organize our thoughts as best we can. I have values, as does the religious person, and my response to a crisis will reflect these values. If someone wants me to prove my values are logically correct values I tell him I'm busy.

[doldridg]

Edmunte1, on Dec 11 2007, 06:04 PM, said:

Very interesting posts, thank you everyone for nice ideas. I read some time ago an interesting book about this topic called "Scientific Creationism" by Henry M. Morris, and i recommend it to everyone intrested.

I'm not saying that Scientific Creationism is a better theory than Darwin's Evolution Theory, but it's a certain alternative. Many people pointed out that believing in a superior creature has nothing to do with science, but i should remind you that every theory starts from a set of "axioms". Axioms are things that cannot be demonstrated, in other words they are "beliefs". "I believe that through a point you can make only one paralel to another straight line" (one of Euclid axioms).
So in other words, everyone of us has his beliefs, based more or less on his knowledge and understanding of the world, and faith (beliefs) are a part of it. Let's us remember that in time theories modified due to new knowledge and understanding of the universe. Newton's laws were improved by Einstein's Relativity Theory and when Quantum Mechanics appeared everyone tghought it was bullshit. Nowadays The String Theory gains more followers, though it's a certain thing that it will be almost impossible to be proven, so you have to admit its axioms (beliefs), but it's the only theory that can unify the big universe and the small one.

Humans are rational beings. They try to organise the universe, they try to give it numbers, laws and theories that can help them in understanding the universe. In other wordds they're trying to give it sense (ration). But they have to start with some initial assumptions, beliefs. I don't know why one of them cannot be that our creator used similar instruments for making different beings

You're missing the point. Morris (whose ideas are mostly cribbed from Nova Scotia SDA apologist George McReady Price's defence of some of Ellen G. White's claims) never in his entire life presented any scientific theory of creation. Nor has any creationist done so. In point of fact, to anyone with a knowledge of geology--even a basic one--it is evident that Morris was heavily into concocting cunning lies, clearly designed to deceive the ignorant.

The Church has a very old and precise word for this kind of so-called "ministry." That word is HERESY, meaning that the teachings being uttered are heterodox and should not be considered Christian doctrine.

You are, of course entitled to your heretical beliefs and teachings, but you have neither the legal nor the moral right to force them into my church through the back door of the public school system.

Creationism and its intelligent design disguise are nothing more than deceptive attempts to do just that.

Evolution isn't "just a theory," unless you want to include universal gravitation, general relativity and quantum electrodynamics, to name three, under that same label. Would you have us give equal time to flat-earth geography, to astrology, to ceremonial magick and alchemy?

Because all of those have at least as much corroborating evidence as latter-day creationism.

I repeat. Darwin and Wallace did not discover evolution. They simply came up with the first natural explanation for it. The theories that explain evolution are changed and refined as evidence accumulates. The fact of evolution doesn't go away and lies about geology, about paleontology, about nuclear physics and about theology won't change that fact.

[Fluffy]

nige1, on Dec 13 2007, 01:53 PM, said:

Edmunte1, on Dec 11 2007, 06:04 PM, said:

I'm not saying that Scientific Creationism is a better theory than Darwin's Evolution Theory, but it's a certain alternative.

Edmuntel makes good points but his main thesis is questionable. I don't know what "Scientific Creationism" is but it is probably OK as a religion.

I doubt that it would qualify as Science. If it requires more hypotheses than conventional Evolutionary and Genetic models then it would be emasculated by Occam's razor.

I ain't so sure Occam's Razor applies that easilly.

The strong point of god is that it leaves nothing to explain, evolution has yet to provide explanation to where the universe comes from and why, also to why so many people believe in god, or so many people believed that jesus was his son, etc. etc.

[hrothgar]

Fluffy, on Dec 14 2007, 07:55 PM, said:

The strong point of god is that it leaves nothing to explain, evolution has yet to provide explanation to where the universe comes from and why, also to why so many people believe in god, or so many people believed that jesus was his son, etc. etc.

Other than that niggling little question about where this "god" person came from...

For what its worth, evolutionary biologist make a very clear distinction between

1. Abiogenesis
2. Evolution and natural selection

As for the issue regarding why so many people believe in Christianity...
People believe lots of stupid things. It's part of the human condition.

As I've noted in the past, I think that susceptibility to "religion" bestowed an evolutionary advantage to societies a few thousand years back. The opiate of the masses made social organization much easier.

Regretfully, I think that we've hit the point where the converse is true. Having large numbers of people that place faith above reason has become down right dangerous.

[mycroft]

barmar, on Dec 13 2007, 05:46 PM, said:

The book I happened to be reading was God is Not Great: How Religion Spoils Everything.

"[My son and I] would end up having these deep discussions on the trip home, like ... the fact that Organized Religion is Evil. I said I didn't completely agree..."
-- The Rev. Dr. Dawson, December 9, 2007 (from memory)

There is a great difference between God and Religion. However, without Community, there is no God on Earth, much as this massive introvert would wish it; and community breeds organization.

If you are self-sufficient, more power to you. Many of us are not that lucky/confident/deluded - my mind, for instance, spent many years trying to kill me. I needed my crutches (I happen to believe that some of them aren't crutches, of course, but you would disagree. Some of them definitely were). Were I lame, you wouldn't begrudge me my crutch if it kept me walking, I assume; it's only mean-spirited people who laugh at cripples(*). If you lose respect for someone who in your opinion is using a crutch when he is psychologically lame, then I don't think there's much difference.

Michael.
(*) Cue my story about driving my partner's powered wheelchair to an out-of-the-way parking place after she'd got to the table. Everyone very happily got out of the poor guy in the wheelchair's way; but you should have seen the glares I got from those same people when I parked it, got up, and walked back to the table! Most of them got it eventually, though...

[nige1]

barmar, on Dec 13 2007, 06:46 PM, said:

I lost quite a bit of respect for someone I had considered an intelligent man.  I'll keep going to him, as I have no complaint about his dental work and I don't feel like trying to find another dentist.  But I can't help feeling sorry for someone who needs religion as a crutch like that.

We psychological cripples are grateful to Barmar for his concern We are reminded of the difficulty that "Fourth Suit Forcing" had in gaining acceptance Terence Reese adopted it but he always jocularly referred to it as "the pitiful crutch" Nevertheless it is now regarded as one of the most useful clubs in the bag of conventions

[barmar]

I'm sorry if anyone considers this insulting. But IMHO, anyone who seriously believes that a mythical super-being intercedes on the behalf of individual humans is delusional; it's the adult version of believing in Santa Claus. And if you actually depend on this being to solve your problems, you're really in trouble.

The concept of god (or gods) was created when our species was in its infancy and was very ignorant. "Common sense" from their daily lives suggested that changes are initiated by animate beings: humans and animals. So to explain natural phenomena like weather, earthquakes, fires, illness, death, and the existence of nature itself, they assumed there had to be a causal agent, and they called this "god". We now know much more about how things work, and we understand that things can happen spontaneously -- we don't need to posit an intelligent "ultimate cause" to explain the universe.

But religion ingrained in our culture. It has strong political ties, and religious leaders enjoy great power that they don't want to give up. Some also think that there may be a genetic predisposition to religious belief (the so-called "God gene"); religion unites communities, which affords better protection, and also allows shamans to work their healing "magic" more effectively, so religiously-inclined people tended to survive more (i.e. religion evolved by natural selection!). So people are reluctant to give it up.

No, I don't bugrudge a disabled person the use of a true crutch. But some types of crutches are appropriate, others are not. Many people with problems turn to drugs or alcohol. Although religion may not be as self-destructive as they are, I still see it as the wrong way to solve your problems. You're not actually DOING anything, you're praying for someone to solve your problems for you. How is this different from a beggar on the street, hoping for people to give him money?

My religion (Jewish) teaches that we were once slaves in Egypt, and God used his powers to get us liberated. First of all, there's no historical evidence that we ever really were slaves, or that there was an exodus, but let's assume there was. Should I be proud that we were freed by magic? Compare this with the plight of African-Americans, who were enslaved for several hundred years in America, and even after they were officially emancipated they've been second-class citizens. But they have actively fought (mostly non-violently) for increased civil rights. They deserve the improvements in life that they've gotten, they weren't just handed to them by God, so they should be proud of their achievements. On the other hand, I think most bigots are probably very religious, and think that white supremacy is their God-given status (and similarly for anti-gay); there's no rational reason, so they turn again to mythology to support their position.

That's one of the problems with religious: if you couch a belief in a religious context, you can get away with practically anything. It's lucky that Catholic bishops never found anything in the Bible that they could interpret as commanding priests to fondle little boys -- if they did, parents would be actively pulling their kids' pants down. If you don't believe this, remember that we cut off a piece of little boys' anatomy because of one line in the Old Testament.

[Edmunte1]

mycroft, on Dec 13 2007, 03:26 PM, said:

So, is Scientific Creationism falsifiable?  Does it predict, in an experimentable way, something?

Without those two properties, it may be decent belief, *it may even be right* - but it's not Science (it also has to explain all the data to be current Science, but it does).

The answer to all of the "why can't we just" questions is that in order for it to be Science, it must meet those three criteria.  If it doesn't, then it isn't Science and should no more be taught in Science classes as Spanish (which is probably a good thing for certain people to learn, but it's not Science - and I wouldn't want people trying to teach me Science in Spanish class, either).  I make an exception for using it to make the exact argument I'm making here - that it is an explanation, but since it can't be tested, falsified, or used for prediction, it doesn't meet the criteria for Science.  That doesn't mean it's *wrong*, necessarily.

This is a strong point. Creationism theory cannot be a science.

"For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:
-consistent (internally and externally)
-parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
-useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena)
-empirically testable and falsifiable
-based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
-correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data)
-progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more)
-tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)", but:

a)Creation science is not falsifiable : Theism is not falsifiable, since the existence of God is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. If God is a transcendental being, beyond the realm of the observable, no claim about his existence can be supported or undermined by observation.

b)Creation science violates the principle of parsimony : Creationism fails to pass Occam's razor. Many explanations offered by creation science are more complex than alternative explanations.

c) Creation science is not empirically testable : Creationism posits the supernatural which by definition is beyond empirical natural testing, and thus conflicts with the practical use of methodological naturalism inherent in science.

d)Creation science is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments : That creationism is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments stems not from the theory itself, but from the phenomena that it tries to explain.

e)Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive : Creationism professes to adhere to an "absolute Truth", "the word of God", instead of a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. "

On the other half, evolution theory it's a science and it's rational. It helps its main purposes.It put things in order, from small to big, from simple to complex, everyone has his branch in the evolutionary tree. It also tries to explain how did it happen. It's logical and apprehensible. But it has some flaws:

"a) There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
b ) The fossil recors shows the species do not evolve but exist for million of years without changing
c)natural selection cannot change on species into another because it can work only on variation already present in the species.
d)The odds against random chance for producing a complex organism from lifeless ingredients are astronomical
e) life contains structures and systems too complex to have evolved gradually, step by step.
f) Evolution violates the second law of thermodinamics
g)The rock strata finds are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution"

So my point of view is that evolution theory should not be used as an atheic theory. Humans, in all their history, were searching for the ultimate answers for the essential questions like our origin, and i think we are still far from that. Everyone has his choice that satisfies his way of understanding the universe, no matter if one's choice is Darwin's theory, or a catastrophic theory, or an external interference or an omnipotent creator