PBS just recently aired a very good documentary called "Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" profiling the Evolution vs Intelligent Design/Creationism trial in Dover, Pennsylvania in 2004. I recommend watching it to any of you interested in the ongoing battle between the scientific establishment and the religious creationists.

The Dover trial was and is important because it put to test and scrutinized the two mutually incompatible "explanations" for the diversity of life seen on the Earth. It saw some of the arguments against and for evolution be evaluated and had the same done for ID. More importantly, it saw science itself be somewhat questioned and definitions of what constitutes as science be elicited. The outcome of the trial was of no surprise - honest science and truth prevailed as the judge upheld evolution as a valid scientific theory and ruled ID/Creationism as bad science.

Whenever you hear a argument against evolution, do make an effort and read the scientific explanation. After all, the truth stands superior isn't it?

EDIT (19/Nov/2007): The BBC Horizon series had a program in 2006 on the same topic and is an interesting watch too.

There are a few interesting comics on the net that I read. "Jesus and Mo" is one that I came across a few months ago. I found the recent entry at the comic on evolution quite amusing. Check it out here

Both Creationists and Evolutionists among you would have probably gotten all fired up by that! Personally, I think evolution is as valid as creationism, if not more valid. Humanity has tended to subscribe to science for all of its "development" and as per science there is supposedly an overwhelming amount of evidence backing evolution theory. Moreover, there are many real world applications making use of evolutionary methods - especially so in the field of artificial intelligence and artificial life. These evolutionary methods work repeatedly and consistently and seem to closely simulate how our real world works. That, however, is not enough to validate and authenticate evolution entirely - atleast not for strict creationists whose belief in creationism stems from a single strand interpretation of something within their belief itself. Nothing more, nothing less. How do you show evidence for creationism without using circular reasoning and ending up in a tautology? Then again, I suppose the same thing could be said about science. *scratches head*

My friend M shed some of his thoughts on the matter a few months ago on his blog. It is an interesting perspective that seems to be primarily intended for creationists - I recommend reading it if you are one.

So what are you: a creationist or a evolutionist?