Now I know how Darwin's family must feel...if he actually could figure out how to mate! Have any of you checked out the other Creation/Evolution forum room that is open? I posted the same question there and they freaked out! Talk about needing to evolve...or rather grow up.
Anyway, I'll post my same opinion here for you to read if so desired. This is not a debate offer from me. But since so many folks wish to make a debate out of a totally friendly question than I'll post one for you to be happy. Just remember, I don't claim to know everything, and if you do or claim to be able to, than you must be your own religion and I pity that fool that worships you!
Ultimately my stance is that both secular/regular (whatever you wish to title it) AND creation/Christian/Biblical based theories have points of origins, at various levels, that are (in my opinion) unsubstantiated to a large degree. I'm perfectly ok with that simply because I'm ok with admitting I'm not all-knowing and all-learning, never will be, and believe that all of life's mysteries can not and will not be overcome by any scientist, doctor, theologian, pastor, etc.
Some folks have chose one path or another--or neither--and don't ever look back or care to discuss it. While some attempt to modify one to work with the other. And some try to invalidate one or the other in various ways while never looking at their own problems or acknowledging that both are imperfect and don't entirely add up. And some are open that there may be truths in both but don't proclaim to believe or be able to confirm every point (this is me) and most likely sway towards one side. Face it, every human being is partially biased to something, if not everything, that involves choices or opinions.
Both theories have their points, but in my opinion the main stream evolutionary theories, which rely on the father big-bang theories, are way too speculative and they attempt to use speculative findings and ideas as proven facts, rather than calling them what they are. And when it comes down to it, if I have to believe/accept man that has chosen to evolve from a humanistic stance (which changes with the majority, sign of the times, moral degeneration, and countless other conditions) or believe/accept man that at least says he honors, and for the most part has actions that back it up, a God that I have experienced really exists--than I'd be nothing but a rebel-fool to pick man that appears to want to figure God out of their equation. And like it or not, as much as I'd like it to be different, many (not all) of the authors of these secular scientific theories were Godless men and it apparently openly shows in their writings and behavior. And unfortunately that stance has bred thru the mainstream of that particular area of science but it is not known as atheism or agnosticism anymore--it's called science. So there again we have a mixture of science and religion--regardless of the type of religion or lack thereof in claims. So in my opinion the man that operates and propagates such ideas as facts and will not at the very least be open to all the evidence--that can be proven with 100% certainty and/or witnessed to, whether it be historic or laboratory based without error, and whether intentionally or not, does so under a vail of deceit. To recount, they do so either knowing they are deceiving, or do so in ignorance, but deceive none the less.
From an educational and "scientific" theory viewpoint (whether or not you agree of my scientific term usage) I have chosen a way with the creation origin theory and believe most of its ideas and concepts not simply because the Bible history concurs with it (as understood and confirmed by me and those I respect), but because there is not a better explanation thus far, that is not less far-fetched. We all have that choice or right to choose another, or not choose at all. However, some choices if left unmade are indeed choices for one of the original choices. But that is another discussion altogether.
