If we begin with common (what almost everyone in the US believes - even creationists) ground, it looks something like this:
1. Natural selection is a basic process which results in evolution Nope
2. Certain 'types' of evolution are easily seen at a glance:
- Insect resistance to pesticides Nope
- Pathogen resistance to antibiotics Nope These are poor evidences of evolution of species. Lumping selection and mutation to produce a fitter organism with speciation is inaccurate as a proof of the latter. 1) Is more in line with Darwinian evolution which is not supported by the evidence or even evolutionary scientists. 2) The first part is more correctly categorized with natural selection. The second is a mix of the two. There is definite selection going on with pathogen resistance as well as transduction which produces a fitter organism for the environment. But none of these process creates a different species to support evolution on a macro scale.
The folks who favor creation seem to focus on (2) elements of evolution:
1. How the BIG jumps in the process happen: (these things are not yet understood)
- How is it that life began in the primordial soup of the earth (even simple life is pretty complicated
- How other large 'jumps' occur - development of major new organs - including hearts, brains - etc
2. How this model applies to 'man', since 'man' is special and of Gods image
While there are gaps - ummm - it's also true that we humans share a very large amount of 'homologous DNA' with other mammals including horses, cats, dogs, etc. It seems statistically kind of impossible for us to share all that DNA - and not also share a common - very distant ancestor. This is a big leap. How much of that "homologous DNA" is functional? How much of it is regulatory? How much of it supports common characteristics? When you extract out these and are left with the dissimilar DNA the numbers are not surprising. Common DNA = common ancestor is only supported by theory and opinion.
Those are parts of DNA which are the same
Me personally - I think humans like 'creation' stories since all major religions have them. Not that it's evidence for creation but why do you think this is so? Creation stories from across the globe produced by some who did and some who did not have contact with each other. If using the logic above concerning common DNA one could conclude that a creation did indeed take place.
No offense intended to anyone as my wife and most of my friends are Christian. That said, the Christian or Jude's/Christian creation story doesn't seem inherently more rooted in science than any other religions. So if I were Hindu - I'd want my creation story in there on equal footing with the start of the Old Testament. Creation stories are not rooted in science. They are stories that were recorded for some purpose but not as scientific evidence. Challenging them in this way is akin to bashing a scientific study for it's lack of prose or poor grammar. What I do appreciate is when science is challenged and forced to do it's job better, not relying upon consilience or agreement within a field of study. The better the creationist of intelligent design scientists do their job the clearer the picture will actually be for or against the theory of evolution.