The evolution/creation debate isn't theological, it's ideological. Many people don't realize that evolution was taught long before Christ. Empedocles, from 493 - 435 BCE is called the 'father of the evolution idea.' Aristotle (384 - 322 BCE) and the Epicurean philosophers and Stoics were teaching evolution long before Darwin. The Greek philosopher Anaximander of the sixth century BCE taught: "Living organisms arose by gradual stages from the original moisture; land animals were at first fishes, and only with the drying of the earth did they acquire their present shape. Man, too was once a fish; he could not at his earliest appearance have been born as now, for he would have been too helpless to secure his food, and would have been destroyed."

Anaxagoras, from the fifth century BCE taught: "All organisms were originally generated out of earth, moisture, and heat, and thereafter from one another. Man has developed beyond other animals because his erect posture freed his hands for grasping things."

Today, the battle between evolutionist and creationist is really nothing more than a battle of worldviews. In an age, not so long ago, when chimpanzees on public display had to be clothed for the sake of modesty, the struggle between these world views came to its current state; the futile exchange that continues to this day. The priests of superstitious apostate Christianity, almost completely ignorant of the Bible, were, at one time, the intellectual masters, forcing their sinister and misguided doctrine in the schools and the public square. Any who thought to question it were intellectually and socially inferior. At least that was the position of these ignorant tyrants and now, in the modern 'age of reason' the same methodology is used by the competition. If you are a Creationist who protests the teaching of evolution in schools just look in the past and see what the enforcement of religious doctrine brought about.

The majority of people don't really bother with such myopic world views, not because they have better sense but because they simply don't care. While the indoctrination of the masses, for what it is worth, gives the smug adherents of either doctrine a temporary pedestal in a rolling sea of stupidity it never amounts to much in the long run. Of course, all of this doesn't mean one can't investigate both schools of thought without subscribing to the ignorance each one attempts to promote, and in fact, therein lies the potential of importance or at least interest to me. To see the sort of madness which a strict paradigm creates, the desperation and the blind stupor, is the same as any sort of examination of world religion. Creationist don't know the Bible. To them its meaning is so distorted it is impossible for them to know it. The evolutionists, in an attempt to render such absence of thought obsolete, have adopted the same principles in the application of a contrary paradigm.

That is at least in some measure, a good thing because the contradictory position raises the possibility of an alternative, even if for nothing more than the sake of an alternative and so the possibility in the near future that each may be examined more closely under the proverbial microscope. Theoretically or ideally the result would be that both become jokes of the past, which is exactly what they are even in the present, only not to their proponents.

The primary mechanism behind evolution is mutation. It is thought that this occurs through various changes within the nucleus of the cell, particularly the chromosomes and genes in sex cells because those are passed on to the descendant. They are necessary for the evolutionary process. The difficulty in this is that the type of mutations required are gradual accumulations of favorable mutations. Sudden changes in the heredity which the environment selects over long periods of time are thought to produce new species. However, there is no record of any such gradual production of anything new. In addition to this all of the available data insists that mutations are harmful rather than favorable.

Evolution is change. You are different from your parents, that's a part of evolution, but this is in harmony with an accurate understanding of the Bible. There would only be a conflict if it were actually thought that one Biblical kind could produce another. For example, if a fish produced an amphibian, an amphibian produced a reptile, a reptile produced a mammal. That is essentially the order in which it is thought that evolution took place, but all available data indicates that it didn't.

Mutations are lethal, harmful or at least benign. For example, hundreds of diseases that are genetic are caused by mutations. Studies in which mutated insects are placed in competition with healthy insects, naturally result in the mutants being eliminated. In order for there to be any disagreement with the informed creationist, there would have to be something new produced.

When an evolutionist says that a plant in an arid climate has a mutant gene which causes the plant to grow larger and stronger roots resulting in the plant being hardier than other plants because it's roots can absorb more water, this isn't a conflict with the Bible until it produces something new. Mutations may change the color or texture of hair but it doesn't change the hair into anything new, like a feather. The plant doesn't produce another Biblical kind.

There is no comparing the intensity of experiments that have been performed on the fruit fly. The life span of the fruit fly is very short, so evolutionists are able to examine thousands of generations of the fruit fly to sort of reproduce what millions of years of evolution might look like in human terms. What was the result of such a noble pursuit? The mutants were grossly inferior to the normal fruit flies in fertility, viability and longevity. When the mutants mated with one another eventually the mutations were corrected producing nothing new, only normal fruit flies which were stronger than their mutant parents and so would naturally survive over the weaker ones.

The DNA corrected itself reverting back to normal flies or the weaker mutants died out. Mutation is a poor mechanism for evolution.

There were two varieties of England's peppered moth, the light and the dark colored. The lighter colored moth was far more common than the darker one because the trees in which they frequented were light colored. The birds which preyed upon them could easily see the dark moth on the light bark of the tree trunks. When the industrial age caused pollution which darkened the tree bark the favor switched naturally because of camouflage. The lighter moth was now more visible to the birds and so the dark moth became the predominate one.

The problem with this highly questionable interpretation is that both moths existed before anyone took note of them, and they both existed afterwards. Nothing new was produced; one simply was favored by the color of the bark of the tree, when the color changed so did the favor. Even if the moth turned mauve and grew a second head it would still be a moth.

The same sort of dishonest interpretation presents itself in other examples, such as germs which prove to be resistant to antibiotics. The hardier germs are still germs, they simply survive over the weaker ones. Insects being immune to poisons while others are not is an example of some insects being resistant to chemicals and out surviving the ones who are not resistant to them. In the sense that something has changed, this could be said to be evolution, but not in the sense that one Biblical kind produces another. Nothing new is produced.

Darwin's observations of the finch on the Galapagos Islands operated upon the premise that they were the same type as those which had apparently migrated from South America, but there were curious differences in those which Darwin observed - the shape of their beaks, for example. The finch that Darwin observed is a finch. It will never be anything else. A black person, a red person, a yellow person, a white person, a brown person, a person with a big nose and a person with a small nose or any variation of person or finch never evolves beyond what a finch or a person is.

A caterpillar becomes a butterfly, a child becomes an adult. This is, in effect, an evolution - a change - but not a change which evolves beyond what the Bible speaks of in the Genesis account

Observable evolution, simply change in line with the Biblical creation account of kinds differs from speculative evolution that has never been observed. Unobservable evolutionary theory is eugenics and other forms of sociopolitical control. Though first introduced by ancient Greek philosophers, Aristotle, Empedocles, Anaximander and Anaxagoras, it was redesigned during the first and second industrial revolutions to remove theocratic control, which was also sociopolitical.

The Biblical kinds constitutes divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. The boundary between "kinds" is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.