bzrd here: No story is science. Science can only deal with what is observable and quantifiable. As Creation occurred in the unobservable/unrepeatable past makes it as much a matter of history as science. Having said that, science can be used to make some very general deductions based on empirical observations in the present, however, ALL deductions [inferences] require that one starts with an assumption. The materialist assumption is that all there is is matter. This is an assumption. Creationists assume there is a Creator whose presence can reasonably be inferred through deductive reasoning. [try doing a search on the Anthropic Principle] Creationists/materialists both use the same evidence to support their positions. For ex. the evolutionists can postulate how man evolved from apes using fossilized bone fragments and teeth, complete with an idealized drawing of what [the critter?] it would look like and how, over time it would metamorph into human being. A Creationist would look at the same evidence and give a best guess that it was indicative of an extinct variety of pigmy chimp. From a purely objective aspect, the latter view is more tenable scientifically, in that the evaluation of the evidence doesn't go beyond what it can support. ======================== Alright. I see your point. But that holds only if you consider what was written above (jungle to plains theory) a story. Does one equate stories with theories? Small detail: evolution doesn't suggest human evolution from apes, it suggest that humans and modern apes evolved from a common ancestor.

You're correct in pointing out that evolutionists make assumptions, but they are well grounded assumptions based on data gathered from other disciplines. Pretty much all of science is forced to make some. However, I'm suspicious about creationism because I don't think that many of the assertions made are really derived directly from observation of nature. It looks as if creationism is bent on proving that all events in the bible have historical basis. Starting from these premises, then trying to prove that they're true by disproving evolution. The materialist point of view rejects the existence of an all powerful diety because God it is neither observable or quantifiable. We've never seen any kind of evidence for a spiritual being (what would it be made of? energy?). And the world can be explained without infering the existence of such a being.

Furthermore, as I've said, all the evidence in the world against evolution doesn't produce evidence for an all powerful being, let alone one that is also all compassionate, and all present. No amount of deductive reasoning (thru empirical observation) can make a logical inference for a Christian God.

P.S. thanx for the info on the anthropic principle :o)