Evolution, generally speaking is a very broad term in science, and it is a concept most scientists believe in. The number of scientific believers in creationism is very low and I am not one of them because I am a firm believer in religious texts prescribed to us by the Church of England. But evolution, as Charles Darwin sees it is very different from evolution in general because his theory revolves around natural selection and not really only about genetic descent throughout the ages from an ancestor that was similar to us.
In this retrospect, evolution doesn’t sound so much different from creationism because religious texts believe that after God created Adam and Eve, and the serpent tricked it so that they got banished from Heaven and fell to Earth (the serpent, meanwhile, grew deadly), the whole human race soon began to grow. But the similarities end there – at the thought of the origins because evolution prescribes to the idea that human beings evolved from our nearest mammal: extinct humanoids.
Darwinism believes that new species only came about through repeated sets of change in biological structures as life on Earth progressed through the ages. If you wanted to get into the whole argument over which is more profound: religious texts that date centuries or scientific theories, don’t even go there – you are fighting a losing battle.
It’s because both arguments are starkly opposite from each other and neither can just be crossed out to help simplify your thoughts. You have to understand how theology is related to evolution, because as Richard Dawkins has stated in his book The Selfish Gene (1976): genes mutate and grow, not one particular organism.
I do identify with this thought pattern, because it satisfies both ends of the spectrum of this debate: natural selection can help explain many fundamental theories if you can connect it to the age old learnings religious texts have taught generations. It has taught us that the universe came into existence on a particular date, that humans are products of creationism but then as science grew and with it brought new questions to the front, somewhere along the line, history and science became two opposing sides.
This is, however inaccurate I strongly believe, because they are in fact two sides of the same coin: Darwinism predicts that human beings evolved from humanoids that can be presumed to be genetically close to us. Nevermind, that unlike dinosaurs who no longer exist but their shrunken evolved form still does as flying birds, apes still walk the Earth, alongside humans (their cousins, from extinct humanoids), it also raises some probing questions over this less-well-liked-by-the-public theory: are you arguing for genetic change, that sometimes remains stationary and sometimes doesn’t or are you talking about the relation biological diversity has with each other?