I must disagree with Les Lane's assertions that Creationism is not science.
["It's not science" (http:// www.mccookgazette.com/story/1196143.html)]
What Lane fails to realize is that science is the observation of real events that occur in nature. Obviously Evolutionism is not an observance, but rather a theory, from the observances of Charles Darwin during a relatively short stay in the Galapagos Islands. While Mr. Darwin tried to export his theories as science, he was unable to provide any proof of his theories. In fact, events that are supposed to take place over millions or billions of years might never be observed. Fossil records only provide more questions, and more often than not, are more disproving to evolutionism than they are supportive.
The difference of creationism is that it is based on ancient texts that are first hand accounts, and eye witness reports of actual events. While the creation story itself is not a first hand account, it is a story that was passed down through a finite and recorded line of ancestry.
Thus there is more actual proof to creationism than to evolution.
There are indeed several similarities between popular post-modern scientific thought and the traditional view of Creation:
Modern science states that the universe began at the singularity with a "big bang" in which the complete universe exploded in to reality.
Creation explains that God created the vastness of our universe with little more than his spoken word. Both accept the evidence that the universe was created quickly and came from nothing, albeit science calls it a very small dense pocket of matter.
Science and religion agree in the facet of world climate change. Some theorists have stated that a giant comet impacted the earth near the Yucatan peninsula, creating a global tidal wave which was miles high, which destroyed the dinosaurs and life on earth as it was known. Creationism says that God created a flood and told Noah to gather up a very few animals to repopulate the earth.
These similarities are countless. Lane stated that creationism is merely religious apologetics, yet most people who have accepted the theory of evolution as hard fact are offended when it is termed as anti-religion.
Einstein himself was not convinced with Darwin's theories and after Einstein finished work on the theory of relativity, he went on to a "theory of everything" which he pursued until his dying day. In this work, he strove to prove God scientifically, and was sadly dismissed by the rising groups of Darwinian scientists as losing his mind.
The true treachery of Darwinian thinking is that it stifles otherwise creative minds into a singular track of thinking, which has probably slowed the progress of science immeasurably.