If they were led to believe in a god, then that of course is their choice. There's no reason why that has to compel them to reject the evidence for evolution as well.


In other words, "I don't believe it, therefore creationism must be right." Pure luck really is a possibility -- seeing is a pretty useful trait, after all. Other possibilities I've come across are the Gaia hypothesis (specifically the Daisyworld computer program being used to test it), and Rupert Sheldrake's ideas of morphic fields and group consciousness. None of these require creationism. Always, the danger involved in saying "this is the work of the gods" is to say the case is therefore closed, and not to investigate further.


Yet the evidence is there that evolution is a real process which happened and which continues to happen. The fact that you personally find it improbable, and find it more probable that a supernatural being created the world and everything that ever lived in it over a 6-day period 6,000 years ago, is not going to overturn the theory.


Scientists aren't just making stuff up. There's a fossil record and there's genetic evidence, even if you choose to deny them. There are also living organisms whose living, working systems we can study and learn from.

Do you honestly think that scientists know nothing, that they just wildly use their imaginations in order to have a laugh and fool people? Do you seriously think that their years of study in their respective fields just trains them to make stuff up? I'm not saying I think all of them have everything right, but before I make that decision I look at what they know and what I don't, and I want to see if there are any scientists who also agree with my own position. If there aren't, then I figure my position is probably up the wrong alley. I would not, for example, say "I think relativity is wrong" without learning a great deal about it first, and finding tests to prove it. It's more likely that I simply don't understand why scientists think it's right.


It must depend on what their definition of science is. Everything that can have any bearing on an old earth or evolution is thrown out, because according to them these things can't be true. Some of them have done a really slick job on using what they know about science to weave some scientifically inaccurate but plausible-to-the-layperson claims. None of this is very scientific.

About the opals . . . Synthetic opal has been around since 1963(?). We can make diamonds too but this doesn't prove they were made in the earth in a matter of hours. Cram's opals are experiments and I can't find much info but it looks like Cram isn't happy with the results. The opals aren't 'natural' enough.