Here is an example of (one of many) ongoing "creationism vs. evolution" debates. Hovind - Rainbow debate In this debate a biologist teacher/researcher mr. rainbow and the creationists debater mr. hovind go on to debate this evolution <-> creationism controversy. First of all this is a somewhat unequal debate, because rainbow is primarily talking about the many indications (we say not here "proof" because what at all constitutes "proof" --- this is important to notice because no scientific theory ever produces "absolute proof" and most likely all theories of science can be undoubtly be proven "wrong", which means: they only have some approximate correctedness and will be replaced with a better theory) there are that species have common ancestors and that macro evolution happened. Mr Hovind on the other hand, has no theory at all, but debates from the point of view of the literal correctness of the bible (earth is only 8000 years, and all humans are descendants from adam and eve, etc.). This is therefore a hopeless debate, since Hovind never "reveals" a real theory because he has none. His point of view is not scientific to begin with. Despite that, he uses a very low profile debating technique to his opponents, which goes like: either you proof me before our eyes that your theory (for example macro evolution) is correct, or I will not believe it. His opponent never realy tries to counter act such ridiculuous arguments and treats Hovind much too gentle. In fact he makes clear he is somewhat of doubt wether or not God exists to say the least. If Mr. Rainbow were to use the arguments his opponent uses, he would have confronted mr hovind with: either you give us PROOF that a literal 6 days created happened, or I will not believe you.... So all points brought up by mr hovind that argues that "this is not science", while this same standard never realy applies to his arguments. If he believes that there was literal creation, and that also that is a scientific theory, that supposedly explains where humans and all other animals and living organisms come from, then he would need to reveal some of how God did this. He does not tell us, and when asked, he says: I don't know. This is like saying: everything can be explained by assuming God did it, and at the same time, what God is or what God does, and how it is done, is something of a big mystery. There is no way to disproof such a theory, because it is NOT a scientific theory. Science can not give us any absolute proof about anything, but just give some relative truth. In fact all knowledge (real knowledge) is relative. So, this whole debate is unfair. Rainbow is not allowed (since the debate was to be about only macro evolution) to go into the absurd statements and "theory" of Hovind (if a 8000 year old world is true, most of our astronomical and geological and biological science is flat out wrong). Or perhaps Mr Rainbow is trying to be gentle to his opponent, and not confront him with the absurdities of his BELIEF (Hovind makes false claims about how he likes and approves of science, while he regularly misuses and misrepresents science). Even though Hovind himself is making a mock of science (while his opponent does not dare to make a moch of religion), some of his claims are of course correct. The idea for example of the big bang as having started from nothing at all, is of course a joke (even though it is seriously believed by some scientists). This idea is in fact quite literal a "creation myth" since it would violate all known laws. It is same absurd as believing in a literal creation myth, creation in 6 days, the only difference is the time scale. Mw Rainbow should have never accepted the stand Mr Hovind takes, in which Hovind can continue to put forward scientific critique and demand that science should do something that can not be realized (a proof of macro evolution BEFORE OUR EYES), while this same standard does NOT APPLY to mr Hovind. He never puts himself in the position he puts his opponents, namely to put PROOF ON THE TABLE BEFORE OUR EYES that creation in 6 days happened, since he can not proof us that. Only thing he can do is make us believe that at the basis of the Bible. The point is of course, science can never reveal a complete proof of anything, at least not an ABSOLUTE. The only system that makes absolute claims is religion. The absolute knowledge (God created the world in 6 days) in fact does not reveal us much. No mechanism or whatever explains that fact. Even if evolution is far from bringing absolute truth in this matter, it is more believable then religion, since it is object of a scientific debate in which only proof counts and only assumptions can be made, that are demonstrateble and testable. It is more believable because there is a body of evidence from many different fields (astronomy, geology, biology) that leads to the plausibility of this. Would all geology and all astronomy be wrong, because it does not accomodate for earth and a universe being just 6000 years old? The only evidence for creation in 6 days, 6000 years ago is a book written by humans. If we write a book now, that would teach a religion that everything was created just 1 year ago, including our memory and all physical facts that would somehow "delute" us into thinking that the universe and all was in fact much older, this "creation theory" neither is susceptible for being disproven. Within that myth, everything fits the fact, since everything was created in such a manner that no fact of reality can disproof it. Yet, undoubtly, Mr Hovind is not likey to accept that creation myth theory, since it would not be compatible with his theory. Yet, nobody thinks actually that that creation myth (everything created happened 1 year ago) is true.