Ted, > How? There timeframes are completely at odds with each other. And more importantly why would you want to?
If you don't mind, I'll answer the second question and save the first for another time.
The reason why you'd want to goes to the heart of intelligent design and theology. Evolution can cover a lot, but it cannot cover the origins of life, or the origins of this world, or the origins of the "Big Bang Theory," which itself is incomplete.
Nor can it cover the creation of physical laws. Who decided, for example, that an apple should fall from a tree instead of simply float away?
Evolution is also a dangerous moral philosophy, since it lacks purpose and suggests that only the "fittest" should survive. That goes contrary to modern day human rights, which states that all men are created equal, that they are endowed certain inalienable rights by a Creator. Creationism fits better with that moral view.
Evolution does a lot in explaining biology, even in explaining the origins of complex organs such as the eye. But as a philosophical school of thought, evolution falls short. A belief in a creator makes perfect sense based on the unavoidable fact that life itself is a highly complicated design that is still not fully understood even by the smartest minds on this Earth.
So when it comes to explaining adaptations of species, evolution works very well, but when it comes to explaining the origin of the world and the meaning of life, I believe creationism is a better fit.
Tenchusatsu |
