"There is a chance that maybe we disagree on how to look at this but, simply because more people subscribe to something than others, is not good enough for me to believe in it."
True. But keep in mind, it's not just random people from society who subscribe to the notion of evolution, it is scientists, who we assume practice the scientific method, that are accepting evolution as a majority.
"This also is a matter of opinion, I can tell you first hand that when I was in college (recent grad) that I was taught things that were not factual and that were simply propoganda. I agree that fully that also took place in regards to our history and so on, I would argue though that it is still going, but it may just be on the other side of the table."
Congrats on graduating(same here-Spring08). Sadly, I am sure both sides have done their share of some sort of propaganda. Hopefully we can obtain objective resources for our future generations to understand and learn from.
"While this is a common view on how creationists argue there views, it is an incorrect one. I will concede that there is an area that is taken by faith, specifically the origin of our planet, and the origin of life, I also would assert that evolutionists take the same faith oriented approach to the same question. The origin of our planet, and life, is structured by evolutionists in a manner that fits what their worldview is. Anyway, creationist use lots of evidence to prove their views, in fact the same evidence that evolutionists use, fossil records, logic, laws of science, thermodynamics, and so on. So while sure since you cant see God, creationists would argue that the evidence of Him is right in front of us, just as an evolutionist could say, sure while I don't have proof of how the world began, or multiple celled organisms, the evidence of how it began is right in front of us."
I understand what you mean when "the origin of our planet, and life, is structured by evolutionists in a manner that fits what their worldview," but what about the majority of plain old scientists, not just "evolutionists" that also agree with evolution. to ignore them, as the voice of the scientific community, is again, ignoring data. What I often hear from intelligent design is "how can something be so complex not be designed by superior intelligence?" I think an example was "the eye", where it was viewed far too complex to simply evolve from simpler organisms. well here you go.
"Yeah, I see a difference here. I would assert again that just because lots of people think that it's a fact, that doesn't make it one. So, since evolution is unanimously regarded as true by scientists, to me that just make it the majority opinion, and not any more of a fact. Like I said before, it once was unchallenged that the Earth was flat, that didn't make it flat."
I see where you're coming from. But let me again implore you to consider hold them accountable as scientists, and not just anyone. Do you ask a random neighbor about nuclear physics? Do you refer to farmer or an economic adviser when it comes to the financial stability? These days, the world is a lot closer/smaller with the tools/technology that we have. Back when "the world was flat", no one had the tools, data, tech, or even the power of voice to stand up to the accepted beliefs.
