Assumption Isn't Evil

Why can’t the ideas of Creationists even be debated? As I posited earlier, Creation and Evolution diverge initially on the point of origin. Neither origin can be proven. So, because that is out of the way, why can’t the interpretation of data by Creationists even be considered? Just because they have God as their starting point doesn’t mean they can’t see the intricacies of life, the universe, and everything. The founding fathers of modern science believed that the universe could be studied BECAUSE there was a Designer.

Beyond that, Evolutionists turn up their noses at Creationists. There are scientists out there that believe in a Creator and Creation, and have looked at the same data that Evolutionists look at, and come to a different conclusion. My understanding of the scientific community would be that differing ideas would be welcome. It helps to promote growth and research. Unless of course, you’re a Creationist. Then you are a simpleton not worthy of serious discussion. There are plenty of scientific ideas coming from the Creationist camp that are not, “God said so” or “God did this”. But those ideas are ignored because they come from a different worldview than Evolutionists.

One final problem, Creationists are accused of making assumptions as if that is a bad thing. As if assumptions are not allowed in scientific inquiry. Evolutionists must necessarily also make assumptions. For things that are not currently verifiable, assumptions must be made. The Big Bang, steady decay, and evolutionary natural selection are all examples of assumptions made by Evolutionists that cannot be verified. Assumptions are impossible to avoid in this debate. But just because one scientist doesn’t agree with the assumptions of another scientist doesn’t mean one is more right than the other because of that assumption. As long as the conclusion is rational based off that assumption, why can’t we discuss conclusions based off opposing assumptions?