I think that evolution is definately real.
There is overwhelming evidence that evolution is real. Anyone who has HIV wither knows that evolution is real, or is completely stupid.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...e/IA2HIV.shtml
You might say that god created the world, but he must have been pretty darn smart and as far as we can tell no one is smarter than humans (it is possible that pigs/dolphins are smarter than we are, but are lacking something we have to put ideas together as we do)
But then, there is another question:
As humans, we search for truth, but do we strive to believe this truth?
correct me if I understood you wrong, gallo, but I think that earlier you said that you don't put any faith in scientific theories, but think that they are the best way to find conclusions from the data observed. But science is where we search for truth (making creationism hilariously out of the picture of what we could rationally believe in an instant) and doesn't it make sense to believe what has come from science? Take this for an example:
You're a baby, you have a totally clean brain (except for your instincts) and your father says "pick up the baby" and someone picks you up. You would deduce from that (I don't know much about being a baby since it's been a while but this is what I'm guessing) that since someone lifting you right after someone said "pick up", you would add the words "pick up" on your list of words, with a small connection with being lifted off the ground. Unless you are a psychotic baby and think that your father was speaking martian language and actually said "screw the baby" and the person who picked you up understood it as lifting you off the ground, or something.
As babies, we are instinctively using the scientific method to find answers to questions. And with more evidence that "pick up" means being lifted off the ground, you believe it. And then when you get older, your parents tell you that there is a god, maybe you get baptized or something, and come to a place where people worship something that didn't originate from the scientific method. You think "what the hell? oh well I guess my parents told me and I trust them because they have treated me well so long." so you believe there is a god. But there is no need to brainwash kids with things of that nature, obscure the scientific lens that connects their eyes, ears, and brain.
From all this evidence, collected long term, Darwin suggested a theory of evolution. Other people said whoa whoa whoa my parents told me that god existed and god will smile upon me if I present this idea. Whenever people supporting evolution say something that supports their theory, the creationists say, "oh uhh god made it that way." well you know what? you can keep on spitting out that crap until it gets so ridiculous that darwinists say "hey look! look over there! that proves my theory, according to your absurd offense." and they go "oh uh that wasn't there a minute ago..."
Your can create any god you want, and it brings comfort because makes you think that something wiser will take care of your problems, has a plan for a good life for you, and will consider your interests fairly (if that is what your god is made to do).
I predict that the debate will never end, people supporting evolution saying evidence that gets it's strength from the fact that it was acquired by the scientific method (the method that is by definition real), but is weak because it can't be tweaked to make it extremely obvious. The creationists use ideas they made up with no evidence. The strength in this is that it can be tweaked however they want it to, because it's made up. The weakness of it is that it is not supported by things that are real.
So it comes down to the method of acquiring (I guess facts isn't the right word here...) acquiring evidence by the way implanted in us by our ancestors, the animals we evolved from, or "evidence" told to us by our parents that was passed down.
So it comes down to instinct vs. tradition. Tradition gives us strength, forgiveness, and happiness. Instinct gives us (this time it is the right word) facts, or things that are real. Some people may say from reading this, and it is true, that oh yeah of course the scientific methos is definately best because it gives us facts, but that is not necessarily true. Should we have a society based on facts that give us true knowledge but not a certain inner strength required for happiness/harmony, or should we have a society based on something that does not give us knowledge, but it does give us inner strength? The only problem with having a mixture of both is that the creationism view is very strong at obscuring the scientific lens, whereas the scientific lens burns creationism like a magnifying glass burns an ant. So what is the answer? Tell me what you think, I would like to know.
Creationism can be used as a psychological comfortor, fine. That's fair. But please, don't argue with the scientists... they are looking at something completely different in nature. You know by observing that creationism can't be real. You also know by comfort in faith that it has to be. One can in fact believe in both if they put them in different places in their head. But don't try to invade that place in your head set aside for observations with something that makes you psychologically comforted...that isn't, whats the word, REAL!
-aaron