Research done in the field has recovered proof alot closer to evolutionary teaching than creation. As to proof in the lab, midochondrial DNA research has shown that modern people are descended from earlier homonoids. The earliest beginnings of modern mankind are continuously being pushed back to earlier times. The oldest modern human remains have been carbon dated at 160-something thousand years. Prehistoric human-type fossils are rare. The world's accumulation could fit into the bed of a pick-up.
It is intriguing that these nomadic primitives left artifacts and graves that indicate a religious or spiritual belief; which indicates self-awareness, social standards and application of abstract thought and logic according to known fact and discovery--an attempt to figure things out.
Interestingly, an very early artifact is a "venus" female figure with exaggerated breasts and hips. Mother Nature? Mother Earth? In any case, an obvious association with life.
Associating the unknown to a familiar figure makes it less frightening and comprehensive.
Don't know how the sun goes across the sky? An invisible, omnipotent god with human characteristics will fill the void; until scientific knowledge comes up with the solar system and orbits.

All you read of Science regarding evolution and the universe is: might, maybe, could be, suggests, may have, possibly, etc... This Science is based on Fact?
God states "I created.." meaning no mistaken about it.
One is based on physical sight and material, the other based on Faith. It's a free choice.
Should you read the Bible, you will find that there was am ancient tribe of people called Horites. They were cave-dwellers that lived on Mt. Hor, and also called Troglydites. The Holy Bible is full of what Science looks for, it's just Science is to arrogant and full of P***e to go there.

Catpaw, I hope you are having a great day. So, creation is a fairy tale and evolution is scientific? Okay, let's look at a few things. First, evolution is a theory and will remain a theory because it cannot be scientifically proven any time soon. You think otherwise? Look at the "scientific method", which is the standard for "proving things scientifically". After you create your hypothesis, you have to prove it by recreating it in a laboratory environment. Of course this can be done, you start the experiment today and maybe someone in 100 million years will be able to say "look, proof of evolution". Today however, all we have is anecdotal evidence. What is the best evidence you ask? Good question. The only evidence we have is contained in what is called the fossil record. If evolution were the answer, we would expect to see animals evolve randomly with new species spaced far apart in time and of course many "link" species (half bird, half frog, or wh**ever). There should be at least one "link" between each new species and the original from which it evolved (actually, should be thousands more links than species, if you want to get technical); however, what we actually see in the record is a massive explosion of species which all date back to about the same time. Most importantly is the lack of "link" species, otherwise referred to as the missing link. To date, there have been many missing links reported but so far, they have all been found under investigation to be mistake or fraud. My favorite (and it wasn't a fraud), was the fossil that lent itself to an entire group of people... the scientists had wonderful stories of basic tool making and how they lived in communities that were the forerunners of today's cities. The only problem was that every speck of evidence was a single tooth. Okay, maybe they could figure out a lot from a single tooth; however, when it was placed under the scrutiny of animal doctors (vets) the tooth turned out to be from a common pig.
Please do a little ACTUAL research and then if you still prefer a good fairy tale, go back to your evolution story. It does show you are a person of faith, because it takes a lot of faith to believe in something which not only has no proof but the evidence available contradicts that story. Have a wonderful day!

If I recall the Bible correctly, I think it defines faith as belief in "things unseen." The scientific method, even when applied to evolution, doesn't work that way. It cannot accept that God did a few magic tricks and "poof," a naked couple is running around in a lush garden and being seduced by a talking snake.
Every major religion has a god or gods or goddesses with human traits and personalities. Each also subscribes that this God will k**l people if we poor mortals piss Him off. There are devout faithful today who have a mandate from God to shoot doctors in public and blow up defenseless people in market places and children in schools.
Begs the question: Did God create us in His image, or did we create God in ours?

I know Jesus is my Lord and Savior and I will always follow Him. I also know that Darwinism is a theory that cannot be proven just as creationism cannot be proven or demonstrated any more than can evolution be demonstrated. Hence both theories depend on faith. Either the faith that through some strange coincidence of fate that life was formed on earth and that it evolved into every known tree, plan, vegetable, insect, fish, and mammal all on its own, or the faith that a creator with far more wisdom and ability that you or I created this planet and all life forms for us to enjoy. I prefer the creator over the guess work.

I am the 3,000 year old man. I knew Jesus and Darwin personally. I can testify that they were both good men that bore no ill will towards anyone. Both were well-read for the time, didn't abuse small animals or children and flossed regularly. Darwin, being wealthier, had a better developed sense of fashion. Jesus however was much more hip with his loosely draped clothes and sandals. With whom would I rather be stuck on an island? Its hard to say. Jesus was much more compassionate but Charles had the intellect. I'm sure they both would have fascinating stories to tell around the campfire.

(apologies to Mel Brooks)

Thank you, Neal. I should point out that my skeptisim about religious beliefs doesn't mean I scoff them. Indeed, self awareness and intellect seems to also have an innate drive to belong to something larger than ourselves, which is an integral part of the story of civilization.
I don't believe in ghosts, even though I have talked to sane, sincere, credible people who can relate a paranormal experience. I have talked to two surgeons, doctors who are in every sense scientists, who have told me of patients who suddenly heal without any explanation medical science can explain.
So, I won't deny that there are dimensions to the world that remain unexplored. However, if a medically trained surgeon is baffled, how can I take the word of a self styled theologian who claims to have all the answers?
If wearing a particular uniform or dress code or baying at the moon is a ritual that gives one comfort and sense of security, or gives one knowlege of "things unseen" then go for it; I don't care.
So, how do I explain the paranormal? I don't. When I see a stage magician make a tiger disappear, I don't fall on my knees and profess that I've seen a miracle. I wonder, "how did he do that?" I may never know.
The thing about scientific investigation, it usually uncovers more questions than answers.