Charles Darwin

Evolution is the change in allele frequency (genotype) over time in a population of organisms resulting in alterations of the phenotype. Change over time gives rise to the diversity of species.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is the nonrandom survival and reproductive success of randomly varying organisms. This is the main adaptive driver of evolution and can lead to speciation. All organisms are variations and the environment, the natural selector, preferentially chooses those with beneficial traits to be reproductively successful in the immediate environment at a greater rate than their fellow population members. As their descendents possess these traits, the alleles shift in the population gene pool and evolution occurs. Gene flow and genetic drift also cause evolution, especially in small populations, but they are not adaptive drivers.
Basically, theory of evolution is the theory that explains the diversity of life. Many believe the father of evolution was Comte de Buffon, a French naturalist. However, he was unable to come up with a reasonable mechanism that drives evolution. Charles Darwin later came up with natural selection as the mechanism that drives evolution and wrote about it in his book On the Origin of Species.

That depends entirely on one's point of view. Some opinions follow.

Creationists have no problem with "operational" science--that is, observations about the world around us. That's why creationists do not believe in a flat earth, as some would claim; the shape of the earth is observable repeatedly in the present. Creationists do have a problem with speculations about how things got this way being presented as equally scientific.

For much fuller, better informed and better written answers, check the Related Link "Answers in Genesis Science Q&A" at "Answers in Genesis," my favorite Creationist web site.

Obviously, I would take issue with much of what is said in the next answer, but this is certainly not the place. I simply want to say that one might compare and contrast the two websites, talkorigins and answersingenesis, and get a pretty thorough view of both sides of the debate.

Thus we see, with the above two comments that it really depends on a person's presuppositions, as both sides have access to the same body of evidence. The problem is that despite the assertions of the evolutionists, nothing has been found in the creation movement which contradicts science. In fact it is evolution which contradicts known scientific laws such as the two laws of thermodynamics and the law of Biogenesis.

In fact, the more research that is conducted the more evidence points conclusively to the creator. This is in every field of scientific endeavor and demonstrates the great faith that evolutionists need to continue to believe.

Creationists, like the many founders of modern science before them, are seeking to investigate the orderly and amazing universe that God has created. The evidence from science, when interpreted correctly, does not fit evolution. Thus it is rejected because it is not scientific.

When modern science was in its infancy, some religious leaders refused to believe that the earth revolved around the sun, or that the planets were worlds just like our own earth. Galileo proved them wrong, to his own cost.

Even decyphering the Egyptian hieroglyphs was opposed, because some religious leaders knew that, if they showed the Egyptian civilization to have had existed continuously for thousands of years, this would undermine literal belief in the story of Noah and the Flood.

Now, it is the turn of evolution. However, to their credit, some major religions are showing a willingness to accept evolution as a valid theory, as shown by the following two examples:-

The position of the Catholic Church: Pope Pius XII stated in his encyclical Humani Generis (1950) that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith and that he considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis; Pope John Paul II, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (1996), said that new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis; Pope Benedict has refused to endorse "intelligent design" theories, instead backing "theistic evolution" which considers that God created life through evolution with no clash between religion and science.

The position of the Episcopal Church: The Episcopal Church has said that Darwin's theory of evolution does not conflict with Christian faith. In 2006, the General Convention affirmed, via Resolution A129, that God is creator and added that "the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an acceptance of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith."

The creationist movement does not find it scientific, regardless of any presuppositions or premises, to suppress, deny or otherwise avoid any evidence which contradicts the evolutionary paradigm. This is real evidence which is available for anyone to see and test for themselves. Such is not science. The evidence which contradicts evolution is growing by the day, much of which is admitted by evolutionists themselves.

The real evidence of modern science has no problem reconciling genuine science with a world-view that incorporates belief in a literal creation and flood. This is also true for a great many of the founders of modern science. Creationism is in one sense a reaction against a wrongful linking of scientific endeavor with atheism. It is also seeking to put forward a fuller picture, unfettered by evolutionary, humanistic or atheistic dogma, regarding the facts of what is. There is no need to deceive or make anything up. Nor is there a need to suggest that creationism is religion and evolution is science. If creation scientists were not engaged in real science, they would have nothing to do. If creation scientists had no real evidence then the evolutionists would be able to successfully refute their arguments. If evolutionists have all the science and creationists only faith then evolutionists would always win the debates with the facts.

Personally, (and creationists are also highly self-critical like this as well) I am not interested in anything that is not scientifically defensible. If the Bible does not reflect the world that is, then it cannot be true. Unfortunately many people, unwilling or unable to investigate things for themselves believe all they are taught. In one sense they cannot be blamed for this since they are only ever taught one side of the story as absolute truth, when it is not. When evolutionists frequently resort to straw man arguments to attack creationism they indicate that they neither understand science, nor what creationists are actually saying. If it is necessary to label creationists as 'flat earthers', which none of them teach or believe, since it is false, this reveals a desperate and sad attitude to both science and the proper way to conduct a civilized discussion.

To say that this gives creationists' scientific arguments a solid basis in the real world is absolute rubbish. It would appear you do not understand science.

In science, you start with facts. A theory then takes evidence+experiments+logical arguments to arrive at a conclusion to explain other facts, or predict facts to be found in the future.

This is not a static state of affairs. Other scientists come along to try and find fault in this process. If they do, then the theory falls down and eventually another theory is constructed. It is an ongoing process through which we learn more about ourselves and the universe. That is science, not faith.

Creationists use the bible to prove the bible. That is faith, not science.

Someone earlier stated that evolution contradicted the first and second laws of thermodynamics and the law of Biogenesis. It doesn't. Evolution has nothing to do with thermodynamics. I assume you are talking about the Big bang -In which case you should get to know more about quantum mechanics which predicts that matter can be created from nothing.

Also the Law of Biogenesis is a slight red-herring. This "law" is from the work of Pasteur, who only said that life cannot be spontaneosly created. He said nothing of Abiogenesis, which proposes that it may be possible to create life from chemical reactions. Also, a "law" which "proves" that something cannot be done is an anathema to science as it is very very difficult to prove a negative. All you can say is that with current technology and knowledge it cannot be done. But what does the future hold ?

A few hundred years ago scientists "proved" that man could not fly. The same writer said that the more research is carried out the more it points to a creator. I don't know what journals you're reading, but ALL scientific research has and is reinforcing the theory of evolution.

It observes a fact such as a fossil, and then tries to find a theory to explain how it got there. (Evolution?) It then takes other facts (fossils) to see if the same theory also explains how they got there. All of these facts (fossils) are open to examination by anyone (i.e., repeatable). If they can come up with a better theory, then this will be followed by the scientific community and not the first theory. Obviously to try to find the age of the fossils may enhance any theory. So scientists (perhaps not the same ones) will come up with methods (perhaps several) to try to determine the ages. Over time these methods will be refined to date the fossils more accurately. From this a third theory may emerge. And so the scientific process goes on. None of this is faith.

I have yet to see a creationist present any up-to-date research or evidence that can be independently examined. I HAVE seen them present parts of 20-, 30-, and 40-year old papers from scientists that have since been disproved by later evidence, sometimes refuted by the original authors.

NO MODERN independent research contradicts evolution theory ("by natural selection").

To say that there is scientific support for evolution is to assert that there is repeatable experimental support for a number of hypotheses:

1) That non-living materials can organize themselves into a living, reproducing cell.

2) That the information content of these cells, primarily the DNA, can be increased by random mutations.

3) That these outrageously improbable mutations occur with enough regularity and in just the right order to construct ever more complex organisms for natural selection to operate on. Natural selection itself does not give rise to new structures, organisms, or species; it selects the more fit from those already existing.

These are the primary ones that come to mind, and I submit that there is no meaningful experimental support for any of them, and plenty of experimental falsification. The Miller-Urey experiments from the 50's attempted something like #1, but showed only that an intelligently designed apparatus could synthesize a handful of simple amino acids, which would be preserved only if the apparatus isolated them from the environment that produced them.

Given the level of improbability of any of the 3 hypotheses above, I'd say that it takes less faith to believe in a Creator God than to believe in them.