mystikmind2000: I have noticed Evolution is considered to be the 'scientific' explanation for life and Creationism is not. Is it simply because Evolution can be studied scientifically and Creationism cannot?
Personally i have always considered Creationism to be the more likely reason for life.... it is just too much of a leap of faith for me to believe we all 'grew' from mud!! And when i look closely at Evolution, there is almost no evidence to support it... in the sense that when Evolution is explained through all the fossil evidence, it is all purely human 'assumption', there is nothing 'real' in it.
So i guess the moral of the story is - when you make up a story why life exists, make up stories connecting fossils, not stories about parting the oceans!
An issue with modern science in our society is that it is beyond the reach of many people.
Have you considered that perhaps, you haven't spend enough time in the various disciplines to get the necessary understanding to make sense of it?
I'm not saying I understand evolution in it's entirety, but between the biology I took in college, the 57 credits in maths & stats I did in university and the genetic algorithm I worked with in my AI class, I saw why evolution works on many levels.
Of course, I invested 6 years of my life in higher education. I'll understand if you don't want to make a similar time investment in the disciplines I studied just to better visualize evolution.
EDIT: However, you can simply accept that thousands of incredibly smart people spanning multiple disciplines spent several millenia of combined man-years to come up with the current body of research supporting evolution.
You can take their word or take the words of a handful of individuals over two thousands years ago who probably didn't do a lot of research on the subject matter.
