I wasn't quite sure whether to vote that it's a science or a theory. The problem is, it is a scientific theory, but the word "theory" carries implications of uncertainty and guesswork. I finally put "science," although I consider it to be more a phenomenon, fact, or theory than a science. (My definition of science is a branch of scientific study, like biology, or applied science/knowledge, like medicine.)
Could you please give links to your sources? Every reputable, sufficiently informative source I have encountered on it supports the idea that it is a scientific theory. It describes things which have been objectively observed, changes to accommodate discrepancies (and, I assume, would be dissolved entirely if sufficient evidence completely contradicted it), and involves more logic, explanation, and testing than simple dogma.
I can't particularly give links to my sources, because my choice to believe in creation was built over the overwhelming evidence I have seen through my entire life. However, if you would like some of the sources I recall, a very good place to start with simple would be a DVD series called TrueU: Does God Exist?. My church did it and it truely blew my mind. You could also try looking up some of Ken Ham's work. Creation is much more plausable than this socity gives it credit for, and evolution is much less fact. ~Rose
I've looked up one partial biography of Mr. Ham, and may look up more about him and his ideas. I have to admit, first of all, that I am generally apprehensive about literalist interpretations of the Bible. Parts, or maybe even all, of it may have been inspired by God, but it has been passed down, written down, and translated by fallible, biased humans, often with their own agendas. The simplest argument against the Bible as literal fact is the presence of two independent, partially incompatible creation stories in Genesis. I won't go into that further unless asked, as the topic at hand is evolution, not religion. I might check out some of his books and that DVD series you mentioned, just to find out any merits of the other side of the debate. Could you please give me a few of your basic arguments against evolution, though? I don't know when I'll get around to checking those sources, so I would rather know why you oppose the concept in your own words. And I agree that divine creation is plausible, mostly because there's literally no way to prove it. Therefore, it is not scientific, but faith-based. I still don't understand why so many people think evolution and intelligent design of the universe are incompatible.
For one thing, the whole of the bible is not meant to be taken literally. A lot of it meant to be take figurativly. Psalm 98:8 says, "Let the rivers clap their hands, let the mountains sing together for joy;" Taken literally... yeah, no. Now, that has caused many divisions, because a lot of people take different parts to be figurative, like those who say the account of creation is figurative. I personally beleive in six literal days, but many people believe in figurative thousands/millions/billions of years. As for the human fallibility in copying the scriptures, I recently found out about some ancient documents that were found sealed away in a tomb (I will have to look up where) and when compared to the documents we have now, the ones that have been copied and copied and copied, the diferences are very minor. I shall try to organize my thoughts in order to tell you why I don't believe in evolution. It may be a while, because lately I've been stuggling to think in a manner that I can express. If you think about it, there's literally no way to "prove" evolution, either. In short, no one was there, and it can't be repeated. I actually have very good reason why Christianity and evolution aren't compatible. I will have to see if I can explain it well enough for someone to understand. ~Rose