No, creationism is not an alternative theory for evolution and it is not scientific. Some people don't like the idea that evolution is talked about in schools, because it contradicts many religious ideas (example: humans are not animals or related to them, the structure of organisms cannot change/evolve to be different and better because they were made perfect in the first place, etc.). So creationism was formed; and by slapping on the word 'scientific' to it, some people thought they could put it in schools without violating the law that religion is not to be taught in schools. Details:
Explanations for questions about our world and everything in it are formed by using the scientific method. First, a scientist would come up with an explanation to an observed reoccurring pattern in nature, this is called a hypothesis. The hypothesis is tested by gathering more data and seeing if the data is supports or falsifies the explanation. If enough data is gathered, the hypothesis can be considered true and it becomes a theory. But even a theory is still subject to being falsified if enough data is found to prove it wrong (falsify). The theory of evolution is supported by data which was collected through observation of patterns and other events in nature. Creationism is not a theory because it has no data supporting it and there is no data to falsify it. So creationism is not a scientific idea, it is more like wishful thinking
According to Wikipedia, Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities.Initially, Creationism developed as a response by a minority of Christians to the Theory of Evolution. Its advocates attempted to have Creationism taught, in US schools, in science classes as a valid alternative to evolution. The courts blocked this attempt, on the grounds that Creationism is a topic of religion and to teach it in science classes would breach the separation of church and state.For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
Evolution does NOT involve creationism.Evolution is a testable and therefore provable explanation as to how the diversity of life on earth has happened.Creationism is a religious viewpoint and therefore a mater of faith.AnswerI agree with the above. Evolution does NOT involve Creationism. Evolution is a branch of biological science and thus rejects "supernatural" claims such as those of Creationism, does not need to consider them. Creationism, often hanging on Genesis, the first book of the Bible, predates scientific inquiry and the scientific method and so is thus rejected by science and thus evolutionary science. In the public spotlight, the so-called Evolution-Creation "controversy" and all the on-stage arguments and debates might make it seem as though Evolution and Creationism (and Intelligent Design) have a lot to do with one another, but I doubt Creationism gets much mention at all in scientific laboratories and scientific conferences (it can't because it hasn't got anything to say about the real world.)
Evolution is a scientific theory explaining the diversity of modern life. The various forms of creationism are religious beliefs, usually inspired by ancient myths captured in religious scriptures.
The main alternatives to evolution are creationism and intelligent design. Creationism posits that a divine creator is responsible for the origin of life and species, while intelligent design suggests that certain features of living organisms are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural selection. These alternatives differ from the theory of evolution in that they do not rely on the scientific principles of natural selection and genetic variation to explain the diversity of life on Earth.
The scientific theory of creation is not a recognized scientific theory. In science, the prevailing theory explaining the origins of the universe, Earth, and life is the theory of evolution by natural selection, which is supported by a large body of evidence from various scientific disciplines such as biology, genetics, geology, and paleontology. Creationism, on the other hand, is a belief system rooted in religious or mythological explanations for the origins of the universe and life.
Because he champions the validity of the scientific bases for the theory of evolution. He also effectively educates regarding the inadequacy of Creationism as a scientific theory.
Darwin's original theory was formulated over 150 years ago. The modern theory of evolution, while still basically the same as Darwin's, is also significantly different. In either case, there is no scientific alternative to the origin of biodiversity.This is equivalent to how there is no scientific alternative to Atomic Theory.
Evolution is a widely accepted scientific theory supported by extensive evidence, and should be taught in science classes. Creationism, however, is based on religious beliefs and is not supported by scientific evidence, so it is not appropriate to be taught in a science classroom. It may be more suitable for discussion in courses on religion or philosophy.
No. Teaching creationism alongside evolutionary theory would suggest that they are equivalent explanations. They are not. Evolutionary theory is a well-established scientific model; creationism is a religious myth, and should be taught as such.
There are no reasonable scientific alternatives to cell evolution, especially since the endosymbiotic theory is now widely accepted. I an sure you can think of some unreasonable alternative to cell evolution. Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time in a population of organisms. Cells could be though as organisms in unicellular especially.
According to Wikipedia, Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities.Initially, Creationism developed as a response by a minority of Christians to the Theory of Evolution. Its advocates attempted to have Creationism taught, in US schools, in science classes as a valid alternative to evolution. The courts blocked this attempt, on the grounds that Creationism is a topic of religion and to teach it in science classes would breach the separation of church and state.For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
Evolution does NOT involve creationism.Evolution is a testable and therefore provable explanation as to how the diversity of life on earth has happened.Creationism is a religious viewpoint and therefore a mater of faith.AnswerI agree with the above. Evolution does NOT involve Creationism. Evolution is a branch of biological science and thus rejects "supernatural" claims such as those of Creationism, does not need to consider them. Creationism, often hanging on Genesis, the first book of the Bible, predates scientific inquiry and the scientific method and so is thus rejected by science and thus evolutionary science. In the public spotlight, the so-called Evolution-Creation "controversy" and all the on-stage arguments and debates might make it seem as though Evolution and Creationism (and Intelligent Design) have a lot to do with one another, but I doubt Creationism gets much mention at all in scientific laboratories and scientific conferences (it can't because it hasn't got anything to say about the real world.)
Evolution is a scientific theory explaining the diversity of modern life. The various forms of creationism are religious beliefs, usually inspired by ancient myths captured in religious scriptures.
No.Creationism is seen by the scientific community as pseudoscience at best, religious interference at worst. In official definitions, it is a hypothesis only, and not a scientific one at that. Regardless of what its supporters claim or would like to believe, they are a very tiny minority. 99.9% of scientists accept the current mainstream views such as the Big Bang theory and the thmodern evolutionary synthesis, and have in the process invalidated creationism as a viable alternative.
The main alternatives to evolution are creationism and intelligent design. Creationism posits that a divine creator is responsible for the origin of life and species, while intelligent design suggests that certain features of living organisms are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural selection. These alternatives differ from the theory of evolution in that they do not rely on the scientific principles of natural selection and genetic variation to explain the diversity of life on Earth.
Absolutely not. The Theory of Evolution is the accepted scientific theory of how living things evolved on this planet. If you're looking for a "bankrupt" theory a serious contender would be the unscientific theory of Creationism. It has absolutely no scientific currency to support it. However, as Ayn Rand said so eloquently: Those who deny reason cannot be conquered by it.
To be technical it is supported by no evidence, is internally inconsistent and is not falsifiable.