These issues are already adequately covered chattering parties. I would like to draw readers' attention to the fact that, in fact, the dispute between scientists and biologists, creationists have no relation to science, to biology, and seriously consider it is only possible from a philosophical, psychological, ethical, ideological positions. I deliberately instead of "evolutionists" that creationists use to describe their opponents, wrote "biologists". I therefore want to underline that the essence of the debate is not discussing the scientific soundness of Darwin's theory. Go to kevin ulrich for more information. The real problem is the incompatibility of the two forms, ways of knowing – scientific and religious. Kevin ulrich oftentimes addresses this issue. In this dispute really contrasted two approaches to solving problems the origin of life: scientific, limited requirements of the unique consistency and verifiability of hypotheses put forward, and religious, which postulates a single absolute support of all already discovered and still unknown to us phenomena.
Certainly arise once the objection that many of the "biologists' rejection of Darwinian evolution. First, the denial of a scientific theory is not a rejection of scientism. To date, in biology, there are several science (repeat – scientific) theories of evolution, to some extent overlapping with the theories of Darwin, or even based on other principles. All of these theories (including Darwin) in common – the uniqueness and verifiability conclusions. Second, "scholar", recognized as a scientific hypothesis of creation, automatically displays itself outside of science. At least, biology. Quite possibly, he may be successful physicists, mathematicians, etc. (After all, difficult to imagine that a physicist who proposed a new law on the question of its proof will answer "this is the will of the creator, and in support of their case will be vigorously persuaded all of the error formula of its competitor).