The thing about the Creation vs. Evolution theories is that neither one of them can actually ever be proven. The only way to scientifically prove something is to test it and for it to happen over and over again under the exact same conditions. Both will forever remain theories, because we cannot "recreate" the universe, let alone test it repeatedly. All we can do is look at the plain, unbiased facts presented to us. Both Creation and Evolution take those facts and look at them from a particular view, which biases them. One may be right and the other wrong, both may be wrong, both may be right. I have a feeling it's somewhere in the middle. Explaining the "facts" of how different things have happened are simply theories--points of views of how they happened. Since neither can completely be proven, both creation and evolution theories take an amount of faith to believe, because they're both simply theories.
However, these theories don't necessarily have to contradict each other. The thing is to simply look at the unbiased evidence presented, learn about all the different theories and ideas people have to gather insight, and formulate your OWN belief/explanation about the "hows" and "whys" of the universe. Personally, I believe in the Creation theory. However, in looking at other things said in the Bible (the source of the Creation theory), I don't believe the Creation story is completely literal, although I believe the events are all true and happened in that order.
I believe, personally, that the world was not created literally in 6 days, but that the story divides it into 6 days because at the time it was written, it was the most fathomable way to explain it. Those "days" in actuality could have been thousands or millions of years. The Bible says that to God, "a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day"--which I take to mean that God is not bound by time, as we are (which also explains how he always was, is, and will be, etc.). Since we are bound by time, it's extremely hard to fathom that something could NOT be bound by a time plane (kind of like something bound in the 2nd dimension trying to explain/understand the 3rd dimension, if you will). Anyway, since God's not bound by time, it could've taken however long or short he wanted it to, to create the universe. Because of not being bound by time, it would be kind of hard to explain when these things took place and how long it took, so it was divided into 6 main events--put into neatly packaged "days" for understanding. It very well may have taken 6 literal days, but regardless, that's not the important fact of the matter.*
Using completely pure, unbiased scientific evidence, the creation theory has not been proven wrong. Only when looked at using a biased eye has it been "shown illogical" or something. For example, the order that fossils (like, animals) have been found in the earth is the EXACT same order they were "created" in in the Creation story (I don't remember the order exactly, but something like fish, then reptiles, then birds, then mammals, then humans). Doesn't seem to be evidence AGAINST the creation theory, rather, FOR it.
As for evolution, I believe in it up to a point. To say creatures do not evolve at ALL over time would be completely naive. I believe species adapt and change over time, the "survival of the fittest", if you will (this is actually how I explain different characteristics of different races and appearances of people based on region). Those that cannot survive die, and those that can pass on those genetics. Some that can't adapt MOVE, and so their traits remain the same, and the cycle repeats itself. Genetic mutation happens, too. However, I do not believe one species turned into another, such as a cow coming from a fish or something.
As for the ape/human thing, I believe God created things in order of least complex to most complex, and apes were probably right before humans were created, thus, different creatures have more genetic similarity to each other than others do. Actually, it's rather interesting. I heard from this one scientific video about the man who "discovered" the "link" between man and apes---you know, that fossil that looks half-man, half-ape. Apparently, he admit (or it was discovered) that he put together this skeleton. He found most of the body in one place, and found the head in a completely different place--some large distance like hundreds of feet or several miles or something apart from each other---and there were many, many other fossils of different creatures in between them. Sounds like he picked a random head and a random body, and put 'em together. Sorry that I don't have a source for this. >_<;
Anyway, regardless of one's stance on Evolution and/or Creation, both are theories that come from perspectives of scientific evidence, and both require faith and logic.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." An excellent and deep quote said by Albert Einstein.
* (Edit: With the 6-day theory, here's an interesting bit of information. The world is estimated to be billions of years old, right? As are many fossils that have been found. With this evidence, how could the Creation Story POSSIBLY literally have taken 6 days? Well, different dating methods (i.e. carbon dating) have been found to not be all that accurate or reliable. For example (again, I don't have a source; sorry >_<), this group of scientists or archaeologists or both KNEW this building was 100 years old. They KNEW it; it was a complete fact. Using carbon dating (or some other "reliable" common method), the results said that the building was something like around 1000 to 50,000 years old (or some ridiculous amount like that; I don't remember the numbers, other than the difference was ENORMOUS between the carbon date and the actual date). There was absolutely no question about age of the building, yet look how extremely off and inaccurate the results were. Our tools are not always fool-proof, so some "scientific estimations" may actually be inaccurate. The world may very well not be billions of years old. It may be, it may not be; there's no actual complete, 100% undoubted proof. More evidence that a lot of "science" requires faith, because hard facts are not always there, or are not always accurate.)
Poll
