It is not a simple choice between creationism & evolution.  There
are other options.  Implicit in the either/or assumption is that we
must have a paradigm to guide our thinking at all times.  The way
science is supposed to work is to first empirically gather data, &
then attempt to supply one or more paradigms to explain the data.
It rarely works this way (or if it does, spends little time in this
mode).  Instead what happens is a paradigm will spring up & gain
favor until such time as the exceptions to the paradigm, the things
in the data that it can not explain, accumulate to the breaking
point & a consensus develops that the paradigm is decrepit & in need
of a replacement.  Take the viral etiology of cancer paradigm for
example.  Thirty years ago the party line was that DIET PLAYS NO
ROLE IN CANCER, it is a viral disease.  Today some of the
recommendations coming out of the cancer establishment almost sound
like NH literature.

To state that evolutionary theory is sorely lacking does not mean
you are a creationist or even have an alternative paragdim to offer.
It simply means that you are pointing out the failings of the
evolutionary paradigm as it exists today.  Sometimes it is O.K. to
get by without a paradigm for a while, & often major advancements in
understanding can be acheived during such states.  Paradigms, more
often than not, seem to stiffle the advancement of knowledge.

--Doug Schwartz
[log in to unmask]