Oh dear a post without an attempt at humor. Ok then…erm…bum?
Sorry, I will hang my head and get my coat.

Creationists aren’t interested in emprically testing their hypothesis, only in validating it. As such, they have abandoned empiricism. On the other hand, scientific testing has enabled Darwinism to evolve into the theory of Evolution.

So while I accept “people should be given the choice to decide, which origin that they want to accept” up to a point (truth is not relative, it merely appears that way from the limited human perspective sometimes) I feel it is dangerous to pass something off as science when it is not. Creationism has no more scientific validation that the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Flapjack is right you are taken my word “theory” out of context. Darwin pioneered the discovery of how evolution works based on a theory of the ‘Tree of Life’ this became the foundation for what technology has now developed and extended its branches of a more complex diagram of species. Darwin could never of done this in his day.

Ever since Darwin the tree has been the unifying principle for understanding the history of life on Earth. At its base is LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all living things, and out of LUCA grows a trunk, which splits again and again to create a vast, bifurcating tree. Each branch represents a single species; branching points are where one species becomes two. Most branches eventually come to a dead end as species go extinct, but some reach right to the top – these are living species. The tree is thus a record of how every species that ever lived is related to all others right back to the origin of life.

The discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 opened up new vistas for evolutionary biology. Here, at last, was the very stuff of inheritance into which was surely written the history of life. In the 1970′s unknown major branch of the tree of life, the unicellular archaea, which were previously thought to be bacteria became apparent.

By the mid-1980s there was great optimism that molecular techniques would finally reveal the universal tree of life in all its glory. Ironically, the opposite happened. The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes rather than just RNA. Everybody expected these DNA sequences to confirm the RNA tree, and sometimes they did but, crucially, sometimes they did not. RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse.

Darwin assumed that descent was exclusively “vertical”, with organisms passing traits down to their offspring. But species also routinely swapped genetic material with other species, or hybrid’s.

Science is not fixed and with up to date technology, we learn and adapt to understand more about the world. But without Darwin’s initial theory, imagination and research to lead us…Well who knows. I simply like Darwin’s quote written from his notebook, above the tree of life diagram – “I think…!”

lol at the comment about the difference between darwinism and creationism haha

Lux: A public private school? Seems like a contradiction in terms. One of those government supported scholarship only schools? But yes, we were taught on the same grounds and I completely agree. What I find irritating is that \’creationists\’ cannot seem to understand that the Bible isn\’t a scientific text and it doesn\’t hold that sort of authority. You cannot (and I stress) gain any real information about the construction of the universe from it. Being a Catholic I find it rather exasperating when creationists tell me otherwise.