By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

First of all, creationism only holds it's ground as a philosophical/religious hypothesis and nothing more due to the obvious lack of any scientific evidence. Even looking at things that way, it's still kind of incoherent when you stop to think about it. Which kind of God would enjoy a static creation when he could make much more? Which one would you prefer if you had the power to make your room be filled with roses - clap hands and have them all appearing at one instant or see the seeds growing and developing all the way to full-grown plants and blooming flowers in some twenty seconds?

Secondly, evolutionism is often misinterpreted as "taking a step forward". There is no such thing as evolution on that sense. No linear walk toward perfection. Nature is often redundant and every single organism is far from optimal (I explained about some skeletal human issues on the bipedalism topic already) which however does not keep life from being the most fascinating thing in the whole universe, of course. Genetic diversity comes by random change alone and organisms eventualy born more suited to the enviroment survive, giving a false impression of continuous adaptation and improvement. That's were Jean-Baptiste, also known as chevalier of Lamarck, failed. Darwin too, by the way, for he actually didn't know about genes and such and used Lamarck's laws of adaptive forces to explain diversity, as himself states on his magnum opus, the Origin of the Species. That's why today we talk about neo-Darwinism instead of only Darwinism.

So, a certain kind of bacteria do not develop resistance to a certain antibiotic even though it seems so at a first glance. The naturally resistant ones were just selected and passed their genes to the offspring.

You can only talk about more or less adapted and more or less complex, the later of which does not automatically mean imediate success towards ever-changing nature. Look at the molluscs, considered much less "evolved" than mammals and still a hundred times more successful than mammals considering number of species. Let alone insects...