I would say yes but there's no scientific evidence for creationism. I'm not trying to be cruel or vindictive but there really isn't. There is some 'evidence' and various presented arguments to support creationism but none of it approaches scientific data, indeed most is aimed at discrediting the current evidence (which is fine, that follows scientific process, however it doesn't prove anything).
The false dichotomy is irritating too, as though all those who accept evolution refuse to question it, such a nonsensical idea, of course it's questioned, all the time.
This whole debate is annoying, the creationists rarely even understand the argument they face (and when told normally say "WELL I DIN'T GET BORN NO MONKEY!") and offer little except criticism of the strawman they put up. I'd love to see evidence against evolution, it would be absolutely extraordinary but none is offered.
So, no I have not reviewed the scientific evidence for creationism because it simply doesn't exist.
The false dichotomy is irritating too, as though all those who accept evolution refuse to question it, such a nonsensical idea, of course it's questioned, all the time.
This whole debate is annoying, the creationists rarely even understand the argument they face (and when told normally say "WELL I DIN'T GET BORN NO MONKEY!") and offer little except criticism of the strawman they put up. I'd love to see evidence against evolution, it would be absolutely extraordinary but none is offered.
So, no I have not reviewed the scientific evidence for creationism because it simply doesn't exist.