George Wald summarized their own viewpoint: "There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose: Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or even supernatural creative act of Goodness. "

He afterwards continued, "There is no some other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 in years past by Louis Pasteur and people, but that leaves just one other possibility... that life came for a supernatural act of creation through God. Therefore I choose to think in that which I realize is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution. "

There are really only two choices concerning the scientific creationism vs. advancement debate: believe in something we do not understand (a creator) or whatever is scientifically impossible (advancement).
.
It was not long before, in the creation vs. advancement debate, that scientists thought that will Darwin's theory of evolution has been backed by science. That has changed drastically over the last 20 or 30 years. Many scientists are asking that question "Is there any scientific evidence left to back the theory? "

As we look at the scientific evidence that has been gathered over the last few decades, literally every so called proof of evolution has simply evaporated. If we look at 12 or so of these 'proofs' that have been used to show the validity of the theory, virtually every one is regarded unsound. They will be the charts and illustrations that have helped convince people who evolution is a valid principles.

V. Ager (former president with the British Geological Association) summarized the challenge when he said' "It must be significant that nearly all this evolutionary stories I learned to be a student... has now been debunked... " And it fell went on to explain precisely how even the fossil record itself did not support the theory of evolution.

There are concerning 11 or 12 of these icons that used as illustrations of progression. Jonathan Wells(author of Symbols of Evolution) popularized a phrase.

Among these Icons has been thinking about homology... an idea that says that because one can find similarities in various creatures, they'll likely evolved from the same monster. The examples that have been used are definitely the bat wing, the porpoise flipper, the leg on the horse and the arm of a human. Because there are some similarities (but some real differences as well), this is certainly supposed to imply that they evolved within the same creature.

There are obvious problems with this attitude. There are numerous similarities between an array of things that have nothing about evolution. (Many creatures have two eyes but haven't any evolutionary connection at all).

Many animals have four legs. For any that believe in intelligent pattern, this is simply an indication the designer has determined that four legs is normally most efficient.. So similarities in different creatures favor the idea of evolution no more than that they do intelligent design. Homology is no longer a valid icon regarding evolution.

Another icon of evolution is the 'evolution of the horse'. Just about everyone has seen the chart with the illustration for the 'evolution of the horse'.

It has been well illustrated by many scientists that the 'horse evolution' is no longer valid. This includes even those who believe in evolution. evolution versus creationism debate, evolution versus creationism debate, evolution versus creationism debateIt's funny how some talks polarize people, and none in addition than the ongoing debate around Creationists and Evolutionists.