Evolution vs. Creation Debate Continues

Today, a study by Rice University professor Marek Kimmel was reported which stated that the mitochondrial DNA commonality of life (the so-called mitochondrial Eve) lived 200,000 years ago. I'll not reiterate the science here; but suffice it to say that the claim "assumes" the model for "estimating" the first matriarchal woman is correct. I responded to the article (and some very opinionated responses) with the following:

One thing I love about the scientists in this whole creation vs evolution debate is how they state evidence as "empirical," yet have little concrete proof--just speculation, guesswork and tidbits of so-called 'scientific data' that shows what might have been (sound familiar?). They talk about evolution in absolutes, yet always steep their comments with qualifiers such as 'might have been; could have; maybe; possibly; theoretically; probably, etc.'

Just like the creationists who rely on faith as their basis , neither side can absolutely prove anything one way or the other. Both sides will yell their point of view at the top of their lungs, yet get no closer to truth.

I have an idea...Instead of each side trying to constantly disprove the other, why not go from the angle that BOTH are valid? It would certainly make for an interesting debate! Founding Father Ben Franklin stated, "Science and religion go hand in hand. One cannot exist without the other." How valid is his point?

Let's also remember that the scientific view of life was sparked by the Darwinian theory of evolution just 150 years ago--a thesis that many scientists and academics acknowledge is incredibly flawed. Until that time, all of human history (generally speaking) viewed the beginning of life from a creationist-type point of view. Is the bulk of human history plain wrong in their thinking? Is it a reality that hundreds of [initially] isolated cultures from around the world all somehow, inexplicably deluded themselves with creationism?

Just set aside any preconceptions and really consider the debate from both points of view. What makes you right? How might you be wrong? Can both sides have common ground? The thought does bring about some fascinating questions for future debate.

As to which side is right, we'll find out some day...maybe...possibly...well, at least theoretically.


(The following is a respondents reply to my post, as well as my response)


(Respondent) xxxxx00000

"What makes you right? How might you be wrong?"

That is the essence of science. We predict things based on our theories, and then we test our predictions. That is the "scientific method." It works best when we look for the things that would prove our theories wrong as well as those that would prove them right.

(My reply)

Thank you (Respondent), for illustrating my point in the debate. By taking eight words out of context [from my comment], you have demonstrated how science looks at what they see and don't see, without considering the rest.

Scientific method has its place--no doubt. It's an invaluable tool.

However, just because what you see appears to be truth, is it necessarily the whole truth? It's like an accountant who looks at numbers and tells you you have to alter this or that in your business, without ever stepping foot in your business. The accountant will say "Numbers don't lie." The businessman counters with, "Numbers don't show you the whole truth, either." The accountant based his remarks on what the numbers tell him. The businessman bases his counter-remarks on what is happening in-store every day--two very different, divergent points of view. Instead of butting heads, the two find the common ground that benefits both sides.

So, who is right? How might you be wrong? Can both sides have common ground?

I am simply advocating an all possibilities approach. After all, both sides have merit; just as both sides have their flaws. So why not consider both?

Why is one side the absolute truth, and the other side completely wrong? Answer that from an objective, rational, non-scientific point of view.

(I got no response.)