"Is evolution a science? Is creationism a science? What is science? Is there evidence for either? Religious fundamentalists often attack evolution, but rarely from a positions of really understanding what evolution is and how it works.

If one is at all familiar with the debates between evolution and creationism, then one has undoubtedly heard the creationists' cry for "proof" of evolution (common descent). But science doesn't deal in absolute proofs. Scientific theories are provisional and are supported by evidence or data.

Creationists also seem to be demanding direct observational evidence that evolution happened. Obviously, without time travel, this is not possible. Does this mean we can't reasonably conclude that common descent is, in fact, the case? No - no more than a jury can't come to a judgment in a court case without a direct observation of the crime.

When the evolution vs. creationism debate comes up, we are usually speaking of a more specific type of creationism: the fundamentalist Protestant version of creationism. This creationism (usually called Scientific Creationism or Creation Science) involves a literal interpretation of the Bible that is incompatible with evolution as well as with much other science and history, but which fundamentalists attempt to harmonize with scientific investigations of nature."

______________________________

Now it comes to the final decision, the verdict as to man's origin and place in nature. The evidence brought by both parties appears contradictory. On one hand, the creationist declares:

"The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths. Through spirituality, I know in my HEART that God created man."

On the other hand, the evolutionist claims:

"It is very likely that species (including man) descended from more ancient forms of life by structural and physiological modifications. The natural world we observe contains evidence supporting the idea that species change. Through science, I know in my BRAIN that evolution created man."

______________________________

Here is the verdict declaring them both as guilty. The creationist is guilty of not considering the evidence of evolution provided by science, and the evolutionist is guilty of ignoring the evidence of God for the only reason he discovered some logic behind the Creation. They are both guilty of literal interpretation of their respective evidence.

Both of them make a big mistake when the creationist says: "If we don't know how it works, it has to be God's.", and when the evolutionist says: "If we know how it works, it doesn't have to be God's."

One party swears that man has been chosen by God, and the other one testifies that man has been selected by nature. Therefore if we take all evidence before us into account, there is only one possible conclusion:

GOD CREATED MAN THROUGH NATURAL EVOLUTION.

Case closed.