Is the Creation vs Evolution/Darwinism DNA evidence/Fossil evidence and or how Life got here for example up to People's/Human/Human's interpretation of the evidence what I mean is both Creationists/Evolutionists/Darwinists both have the same evidence but different interpretations of the same evidence do both sides admit this thank you ?
Good question. I'll do my best to give you a straight answer to the best of my knowledge.
First of all I think we should be clear about what is meant by the terms: '
Darwinism'/
Evolution and '
Creationism' by attempting to mull over the most often-made (or ill-advised) interpretations of these phrases. Hopefully that way, you can have a good framework on which to hang your understanding. In addition, I'll be introducing another term called
abiogenesis.
'Darwinism' is a term used most often by religious people as part of an attempt to undermine proponents of Darwin's work by implying that their adherance to his theories represents some kind of 'cult' following. Very often, it seems to imply that science is 'just another set of beliefs' (as with the case of religion). This is misleading because scientists do not (at least
should not) rely upon supernatural beliefs, or indeed
any assumptions of the sort not supported by observation, in order to generate conclusions.
Evolution represents a scientifically understood set of processes by which all life on earth undergoes a slow transformation in order to adapt to it's surroundings.
It is not a means by which to explain how life got here in the first place. Evolutional theory uses
natural selection to explain how change comes about in species over very long periods of time. Since we have very good estimates as to how old the Earth is, we find more than enough time to allow for these slow changes to have occurred. Because it can also be easily observed over short periods of time as well, both inside and outside of the laboratory nowadays, it's really not something we need be to be too concerned about, when it comes to it's veracity. There is very little there to contradict the presence of a divine creator. Once they understand the theory, many religious people find themselves quite at ease with the idea that God might have willed evolution to occur - as 'part of His plan'.
Abiogenesis is a natural science study which begets a theory of
how biological life originated on earth. It attempts to explain how biological life can arise from organic matter, via a set of natural processes. Evidence for the Theory Of Abiogenesis is altogether a much more challenging prospect for a creationist, although strangely, I hardly ever hear them mention it. As with evolution, many religious people, (again - once they understand it's principles) do not find it hard to accept as part of God's plan. Though admittedly, it's estimated time-framework does require some modicum of flexibility with regards to the Biblical 'truism': "
God Created the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh". Unless one is fully able to believe the Earth is much younger than our evidence suggests - it isn't difficult by using a little reasoning to interpret the book of Genesis as possessing something of a metaphorical slant. Personally, I would say 'mythical' - but that's just me.
Possibly the most difficult hurdle for the creationist to overcome with abiogenesis and evolution when put together, is the discovery that single-celled organisms can mutate and eventually become animals. There is, indeed, a lot of strong evidence for it but as with all sciences of this nature, it would require some dedicated study for any creationist to fully appreciate.
Now to answer your question...
both have the same evidence but different interpretations of the same evidence
I think the question should be whether both sides are really in reciept of the evidence. Scientists argue from a point of view which has been informed by the evidence, while creationists argue from a point of view which has been entreated by holy scripture. In all too many cases, creationists do not consult so much as a scientific peer review. I suppose it's comparable with the person who does not read a holy book before condemning it on aetheistic principle. Though to be fair, I think most of us have, during our formative years, recieved some form of religious instruction in addition to our science lessons at school.
In all the years I've been arguing in favour of scientific principles over the theological, I have not once come across a creationist who offered me their own unique
interpretation of what it could all mean. Rather, I have encountered plenty of ideas of how evolution could fit in with their religious world view. Which to me is fine, if they want to believe that.
Perhaps I should mention some Jehovah's Witnesses who came to my doorstep, merrily proclaiming that fossil evidence had been planted by Satan who, at the time was disguised as an alien in a flying saucer, who drilled deep into the rock to plant an assortment of fake dinosaur bones to confuse us....
though I'm inclined to think we are safe to reserve that one for some after-dinner amusement. ;D
You see, in order to interpret that evidence at all, one has to sit down and actually examine it - and all too many who argue for creation simply don't do that, but rely instead on quotes from their holy scriptures or numerous 'anti-Darwinian' publications made by and for religious institutions, without ever consulting a scientific peer journal or standard textbook on the subject.
On the one hand, you find people who dismiss it out of hand, usually because they've been taught not to trust scientists or perhaps they've been told that scientists are somehow 'the enemy of faith; of God, or what-have-you... On the other hand, sure, there have been those who, once they've made an attempt to understand it, have offered me their unique hypothesis of how it might fit into their own model of a God-made Universe. By reasoning that, since evolution doesn't seem to contradict God's plan, they could happily accept it as
part of that plan. It doesn't necessarily make them right - but they have at least demonstrated a willingness to take the trouble to understand what evolution is and what it isn't.
Though to address the crux of the question bluntly, I would have to posit that the overwhelming evidence for evolution and for abiogenesis need not be interpreted in any other way than it already has. That's because the evidence clearly supports the theory, beyond the point of reasonable doubt. If the evidence had not supported the theory - or worse, had contradicted it - then the theory would have been thrown out by now. Along with all the many other ideas which have been discarded when proven incorrect.
You see, such is the overwhelming nature of the evidence, that in order to fully disbelieve the Theory Of Evolution, one would have to either deny the very existence of the supporting evidence... or ignore it completely.
I hope this answers your question satisfactorily but if you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them. Either way, thank you for reading.
R.M.
