Orange Room Supporter
Pay attention to my emphasis on the belief, where the position I take is creationism and evolution are two explanations to how the world originated. This puts both theories as probabilities rather than truths.
The problem with science post enlightenment is that it did not get away with seeking the "truth" to generate public "belief"by what the system propagate as the truth. When in fact an enlightened people should reject systems of truth and belief regardless to whether these systems are divinely inspired or scientific.
A probability is negated by new evidence, looking for new evidence is the task of science and not constructing an alternative system of belief.
Evolution is not about "how the world originated" -- it's about the study of diversity of life on earth after origin.Pay attention that both theories start from the same position. This is how it began. Or better how it originated. This position is theological. I mean the assumption that things started somewhere or originated from some spot comes from the narrative of the prophets. The explanation then starts from a truth proposition asserting that all things started somewhere at some point, without evidence. There is no evidence that things must have started from nothingness into somethingness.
The point where someone may get stuck at is exactly at this truth proposition asserting that something starts from nothing, but what is nothing? how did they prove nothing to start with. What is the base of the proposition that origin that must have evolved or was created from a point of inexistence. How can we prove that there was nothing and by what material evidence do we measure nothing.
Abiogenesis would be the study of origin of life from inorganic substances, but that's an entirely different topic altogether.