Ignorance and evolution

[Camron]

You’re comparing apples and oranges here. When the stories were written down is irrelevant. The written text of Enuma Elish does pre-date Moses’ authorship of Genesis but think about it. The Babylonians were already a sedentary culture with cities. The Jews were in the process of moving from slavery in Egypt to a nomadic existence. Since writing at this time consisted of using a stylus to make marks in a clay tablet, we would not expect to see these things carried around by a nomadic people. Even today in Africa nomadic tribes have almost no possessions.

The account of Noah was being passed around orally when the Babylonians were writing theirs down but Noah is still the original.

Gary

Did you even read the quote I provided from Pope Benedict XVI?

Look, if you feel that you are right, then that’s fine. But I simply don’t agree some of the things that you’re claming right now.

Read Pope Benedict XVI thoughts on this matter. He offers much wisdom to understand these things more deeply.

 

[garysibio]

Actually, the seventh day does not have the "evening and morning” phrase, and this day is referred to as “the seventh day” just as the “the sixth day” is.

Again, the Church Fathers were not in agreement on this. Neither were other non-Christians, such as some Jewish philosophers from this era, in complete agreement with this part either.

Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period. Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact “that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same “day” as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).

For example, St. Augustine also noted the “evenings and mornings” as such…

He also said later…

Even if these Biblical passages were speaking of a literal order of creation, it is not outside the scope of God’s providence to sustain the plant life without sunlight, so I’m not sure why this is brought up. For example, if God could use a special creation to make plant life spring up then He could also use some other means to sustain this same plant life without sunlight too.

If you’re arguing for literal 24 hours, then you can maintain that opinion. The fossil record does not match this account though. I also think there is sufficient evidence within the Biblical text itself that these are most likely not literal 24 hour day.

The fossil record is one of the theory of evolution’s biggest problems. Back in Darwin’s day he thought that the gaps in the fossil record was the problem for his theory but attributed it to a lack of fossils. That is no longer a problem; we have plenty of fossils but there are still huge gaps. If evolution is correct, than fossils should show a continuum of forms with no gaps.

As far as Augustine’s comments go, you can still have a 24-hour day without sunrise and sunset. Ask anyone who lives in Antarctica or north of the Arctic Circle.

Gary

 

[jmcrae]

I just don’t see why it makes a difference. In each case the phrase “evening and morning” is used. That pretty much means we’re dealing with 24-hour days here.

Unless this is occurring only on the equator, not necessarily. For example, in the far north and in the far south, evening and morning only occur once a year.

But there is no in-between state, either. There is no place on earth that experiences evening and morning more than once a year, without it being every day - one either experiences it every day, or only once a year. Which shows us that there are some circumstances where having one extreme and another extreme don’t necessarily signify that there has to be anything in between.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The fossil record is one of the theory of evolution’s biggest problems.

Even educated creationsts admit otherwise. Perhaps we should test your belief. Would you be willing to put it to a test?

Back in Darwin’s day he thought that the gaps in the fossil record was the problem for his theory but attributed it to a lack of fossils. That is no longer a problem; we have plenty of fossils but there are still huge gaps.

Hey, that’s a testable belief. Name two major groups, which are said to have a last common ancestor, and we’ll see. Better yet, show us several sets, if you can. Or just one, if that’s all you can think of. That’s not a rhetorical offer. Show us these “gaps.”

If evolution is correct, than fossils should show a continuum of forms with no gaps.

If we had a fossil of every organism that ever lived, yes. But fossilization is a rare thing. Fortunately, some populations were so numerous or fossilized so readily, we do have such examples of continuous change. Would you like to see some like that?

As far as Augustine’s comments go, you can still have a 24-hour day without sunrise and sunset.

I have. They’s say you were crazy. For them, as with everyone else, “morning” is when the sun comes up, and “evening” is when it goes down. Some days, they say, there is no morning or evening.

If you don’t understand this, read Genesis; it will be very clear. Meantime, let us know about those gaps.

Ask anyone who lives in Antarctica or north of the Arctic Circle.

 

[Camron]

The fossil record is one of the theory of evolution’s biggest problems. Back in Darwin’s day he thought that the gaps in the fossil record was the problem for his theory but attributed it to a lack of fossils. That is no longer a problem; we have plenty of fossils but there are still huge gaps. If evolution is correct, than fossils should show a continuum of forms with no gaps.

Actually the fossil record is very incomplete probably due to the particular nature of how fossils are formed in the first place. Usually only some catastrophic event, such as flood, or avalanche, or sudden lava flow provide the proper conditions for the mass burials necessary to produce the fossils required for study. Even still, we do have a lot of data to very strongly suggest common descent with modification.

Even more, the genetic record is doing a very good job of filling in the missing details. In fact some of the previous assumptions based on the fossil record are now being adjusted to fit with the genetic records, which is what I would expect of any genuine scientific enquiry.

As far as Augustine’s comments go, you can still have a 24-hour day without sunrise and sunset. Ask anyone who lives in Antarctica or north of the Arctic Circle.

Gary

Then why are you stressing the evening and morning aspect of the Book of Genesis?

Anyone who lives in Antarctica or north of the Arctic Circle can also provide adequate proof that long periods of constant darkness or constant sunlight both last much longer than 24 hours if I recall correctly.

During some times of the year these regions have only evening or only morning but not both during these particularly long periods. This alone seems to suggest that the writer of the Book of Genesis wrote from a distinctly Middle Eastern perspective relaying divine truths in a language and idiom that they would comprehend.

I don’t know for sure. But I think the “evening and morning” aspect more reflects the Jewish thoughts regarding ‘completion’.

On the one hand, the Jewish day starts at nightfall and ends on the next nightfall. I think this is why they present God’s creative order in the Book of Genesis with “and there was evening and there was morning…”

In addition to this, many other religions seemed to perceive the world around them as being in some kind of eternal cycle of constant regeneration with no real beginning or end. The Jewish writers, however, seemed to be suggesting that there is a beginning and an end to all things temporal.

In fact, whereas other religions tend to see the universe in a non-linear fashion recycling through eternal birth and rebirth, the Jewish writers seem to be saying that there is linear fashion or distinct cause and effect, a beginning and an end, even a Creation Event leading toward some kind of Eschatological Conclusion to the primal Creation Event.

I think this does reflect a deeper truth regarding how God operate and sustains His Creation. It seems to me that this is the reason why the Jewish writers chose this particular wording (…and there was evening and there was morning…) to set themselves apart from the pagans around them, just as God apparently commanded them to do.

 

[abu_kamoon]

"There is no doubt that God could have done that if He chose but what God could do is not the question. God can do anything that does not oppose His nature. (For example, God cannot lie.) What were are talking about is what God did do.

The Bible, which is God’s word, does not seem to tell us that God created the universe by a gradual process over billions of years. He could have done so but, if He is going to tell us about the creation of the universe, why would He not tell us that He did it by a gradual process over billions of years.

Evolutionists will say that the Bible was written by a scientifically unenlightened people who didn’t “know” all this information. However, that’s a denial of the divine role in the writing of Scripture. Humans could not have written the messianic prophecies based on their own knowledge but there are some 325 of them (not counting the deuterocanonical books) all of which have come to pass exactly as written. God could just as easily have inspired Moses to write that He created the universe gradually if that is what He did.

Gary"

Gary’s post is so clear and to the point, I had to check and make sure I hadn’t written myself! Certainly God could have used a process like evolution to bring about Creation, but that’s not what the Bible says. And as Gary points out, there are plenty of prophecies in the Bible that the authors couldn’t understand. Why would God have allowed something so contrary to the way Creation occured? If God can’t lie, why would He have become the author of confusion?

So either God has it wrong, or man has it wrong. Are we to believe that after thousands of years, suddenly man has figured out what really happened. God had people fooled for thousands of years until Charles Darwin came on the scene. Think about the ramifications of your evolutionary beliefs.

 

[Camron]

Gary’s post is so clear and to the point…

No. Actually, it’s not.

First of all, there’s this…

There is no doubt that God could have done that if He chose but what God could do is not the question.

Actually, this is directly related to the question and observation.

No one doubts that God could do these things. The question is what did He actually do?

God can do anything that does not oppose His nature. (For example, God cannot lie.) What were are talking about is what God did do.

So far we’re in agreement.

The Bible, which is God’s word, does not seem to tell us that God created the universe by a gradual process over billions of years.

The Bible, which is God’s word, does not seem to tell us that God allows the sperm find the egg, or that the first one to penetrate the egg creates a barrier to all the other sperm.

The Bible, which is God’s word, also does not seem to tell us that God allows the cells of the fertilized egg (zygote) to begin to multiply, staying clustered together in a ball.

Neither does the Bible, which is God’s word, tell us that God allows this ball of cells, called a blastocyst, to slowly make its way down to the uterus (three or four days after ovulation) and burrow into the uterine wall (five to seven days after ovulation).

Nor does the Bible, which is God’s word, tell us that even before God allows the placenta and umbilical cord to be formed, God also allows the cells of the developing embryo to start getting their nourishment from the mother-to-be’s uterine wall too.

Instead, all we read, is something beautifully true and divinely revealed like this…

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

If what you are saying is true regarding what God should have told us about His creating life on Earth, then why didn’t God give us more details regarding the process of conception and implantation and the general development of the child in the womb?

He could have done so but, if He is going to tell us about the creation of the universe, why would He not tell us that He did it by a gradual process over billions of years.

Actually, the Bible also says…

As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things.

Perhaps God did not provide these details regarding the potential speciation of life forms at that time for the same reason He said back then that we did not know how a body is formed in a mother’s womb. In other words, perhaps He did not tell us that He did it by a gradual process over billions of years precisely because we could not understand all these details yet.

 

[Camron]

"Gary:

Evolutionists will say that the Bible was written by a scientifically unenlightened people who didn’t “know” all this information.

But they didn’t know all this information. That doesn’t mean they were unenlightened though. The Bible even says that there were many things that humanity did not know back then.

For example, many prophets of old did not understand the mystery that through the gospel the Gentiles would be heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. They knew that the Jews and Gentiles would be united some day in Christ. But they did not understand the full details of how God would bring about His plan.

However, that’s a denial of the divine role in the writing of Scripture. Humans could not have written the messianic prophecies based on their own knowledge but there are some 325 of them (not counting the deuterocanonical books) all of which have come to pass exactly as written.

I would agree with you that humans could not have written the messianic prophecies based on their own knowledge. It’s a revelation from God. So no one is denying the divine role in the writings of Bible.

But I would also dare say that many prophets of the Old Testament did not fully understand the full implications of the mystery they were passing along to their ancestors until the coming of Christ Jesus. They certainly prophesied in part and had glimpses of the messianic age to come. Abraham even saw this day and was glad to see it in his time. But many others did not see (nor fully understand) the words they were passing along to later generations.

God could just as easily have inspired Moses to write that He created the universe gradually if that is what He did.

Gary

But we already know what God “could have done”. It think we’re all in agreement here.

The question is, “What did God actually do?”

Gary’s post is so clear and to the point, I had to check and make sure I hadn’t written myself!

Certainly God could have used a process like evolution to bring about Creation, but that’s not what the Bible says. And as Gary points out, there are plenty of prophecies in the Bible that the authors couldn’t understand. Why would God have allowed something so contrary to the way Creation occured? If God can’t lie, why would He have become the author of confusion?

Why did God allow people to think the Sun went around the Earth? Was He the author of confusion in doing so?

No. People simply misunderstood how God’s creation actually worked. And the reason why they misunderstood how God’s creation actually worked was because they took the Bible too literally all the while they allowed appearances to deceive them too.

So either God has it wrong, or man has it wrong.

No. It’s not an either/or dichotomy. You’re forcing the issue here in my opinion.

It could also be God has it right all along and man is figuring these things out as they go, getting some things right and some things wrong.

Are we to believe that after thousands of years, suddenly man has figured out what really happened.

Are we to believe that after thousands of years, suddenly man has figured out that the Earth went around the Sun?

God had people fooled for thousands of years until Charles Darwin came on the scene.

Actually, Charles Darwin wasn’t the only person to arrive at this conclusion. There were others too. There were even precursors in the idea of adaptability of species. But Darwin was certainly the person who worked their hardest to place the idea down for others to examine.

Think about the ramifications of your evolutionary beliefs.

We have. Thank you.

 

[anthony022071]

Maybe. However, we have an example of a species of rodents that occured by polyploidy, and they do just fine.

They reproduce the same genetic information. No evolution involved.

Show me.

Because,obviously,there would have to be new genetic information involved in the evolutionary process for humans to have evolved from another life form.

Yep. It does. for a host of reasons. Anatomical, genetic, fossil, etc.

Nope,it didn’t. Scientists classified humans as primates before the theory of common descent was developed. A classification is not a prediction.

But it does throw your “but they can’t survive in the wild” argument in the dumpster.

Not really. I was referring to the O. gigas.

It merely demonstrates that the evolution of new species is a fact.

More accurately,micro-evolution - that’s all that the observed instances of speciation can demonstrate.

Polyploid. And they evolved from diploid rodents. Just another part of common descent.

Polyploids belong to the same general species as their diploid parents,and they beget polyploids of the same general species. Humans,and most other species,are not polyploids.

So we know it works. Moreover, there are quite a number of polyploid wild plants that do just fine without human intervention.

Polyploids are abnormalities which are directly related to the diploid species that they originated from.

Yep. Evolved from diploid plants. Just another example of evolution.

Nope,that’s not evolution. That’s just a doubling of the same genetic information,like a printing press malfunction where the pages of a book are printed out twice.

I think you’re going to have to do better than simple denial to get out of this one.

You’re going to have to do better than cite irrelevant examples of polyploids and hybrids and partial reproductive isolation to argue for the common descent theory.

Sorry, inventing imaginary forms of speciation isn’t going to help either.

That is what common descent does.
It posits an imaginary kind of speciation - the kind that leads to distinct life forms which are absolutely incompatible with each other.

You still don’t get it. The speciation wasn’t caused by hybridization. He was writing about the reason why the two species couldn’t form viable hybrids.

Nope. They are living in the Orinoco basin, with no help from humans at all. Did you even read the research?

These new species are still in existance, the flies in the wild, doing their thing with no human help.

The new species were bred in laboratories. The hybrid flies are weak,malformed and sterile,and the populations which are self-perpetuating are still capable of cross-breeding. So there is no relevance to the theory of common descent.

Some creationists look on examples the way a vampire regards a crucifix.

But science works on evidence. If you want to play basketball, don’t complain if they expect you to dribble.

The full sentence was:
“You should know how silly it is to use examples like that to argue for a theory which attempts to explain the history of all life forms.”

The theory of common descent has to do not only with micro-evolution but with macro-evolution.
But you’re just giving me these examples of micro-evolution and inviable hybrids and genetic abnormalities. Show me a modern example of what common descent claims about the history of species which are completely distinct. Show me a population of apes or chimpanzees that is evolving into a population of humans. If it happened in the distant past,it should still be happening,according to the principle of normativism.

 

[abu_kamoon]

Camron said:

The Bible, which is God’s word, does not seem to tell us that God allows the sperm find the egg, or that the first one to penetrate the egg creates a barrier to all the other sperm.

"The Bible, which is God’s word, also does not seem to tell us that God allows the cells of the fertilized egg (zygote) to begin to multiply, staying clustered together in a ball.

Neither does the Bible, which is God’s word, tell us that God allows this ball of cells, called a blastocyst, to slowly make its way down to the uterus (three or four days after ovulation) and burrow into the uterine wall (five to seven days after ovulation).

Nor does the Bible, which is God’s word, tell us that even before God allows the placenta and umbilical cord to be formed, God also allows the cells of the developing embryo to start getting their nourishment from the mother-to-be’s uterine wall too."

That’s true, He didn’t tell us all the details, but that’s not the issue. We are not discussing what God did not tell us. Rather, I am pointing out that what He did describe in Genesis is in no way compatible with Evolution.

God never told us about space travel. That doesn not make the knowledge we have derived from travelling in space at odds with God’s word.

God never described many of the micro organisms that have been discovered since the invention of the microscope. But nothing He said contradicts the existence of these life forms.

There are many statements in Genesis that contradict the Darwinian Theory, but “scientific Christians” ignore them, relegating them to the category of myth. My question is, why would God have given us a mythological explanation? What is to be gained?

Why didn’t He tell us that we evolved? Why did he say the first man was made of the dust of the Earth? Why not say, he evolved out of the earlier life forms?

I am not arguing that every word in the Bible is literal, as there is much symbology. I am saying that there is no question when something is symbolic. Otherwise, how could we know when something was real, and when it was just a mythical story to teach a lesson? And don’t tell me, the Church is here to tell us. Why didn’t the Church tell people hundreds of years ago? No, this is a case of Modernist Church leaders, who I believe, have lost their faith. They have believed a lie.

Is God the author of confusion? Does He write in such a way as to make us guess at His meaning? How can revealed religion be reconciled with God as the Great Obfuscator? Obviously, it can’t.

If the Creation story is myth, then Christians for hundreds of years were believing a myth. Where was the Church to tell them the truth?

 

[abu_kamoon]

Camron said:

“Why did God allow people to think the Sun went around the Earth? Was He the author of confusion in doing so?”

Does the sun go around the Earth? Or does the Earth go around the sun? Where is your point of reference?

Astronomically speaking, there is no point in the universe that we can measure movement from. All movement in the universe is in realtion to another object.

Our laws of physics are derived from observation. This simplest explanation for the movement of heavenly bodies implies that the
Earth revolves around the sun, but we also say that the moon revolves around the Earth. From the perspective of someone on the surface of the sun, the moon makes a corkscrew-like motion around the orbit of the Earth.

Do we not still use the terms, “sunrise” and “sunset”? I don’t see a conflict between what the Bible implies about the sun rising and setting, or even the four corners of the Earth. Don’t we still use that term?

Many prophecies were written in the Bible by individuals who had no understanding of the events they were describing. So, why would Genesis have to be written in some fairy tale, rather than give us the true picture? I contend that the real fairy tale is Evolution.

 

[Deconi]

God may not be able to lie, but apparently He speaks in riddles!

I guess Catholics are fooled with the “This is My Body” phrase!

If it can be that “one day” to God is as a thousand years, Why is it harder to believe that 'a thousand years (even milleniums) is ONE DAY to God?

The “gaps” can be seen in EVERY MUSEUM thoughout the world. Go before any ‘constructed’ organism fossil, be it animal or plant. After admiring it, read the spiel about it’s ancestor(s) and the several stages that followed before it got to ‘whatever contemporary form’ they have become.

When you’ve fininshed reading look up and search for each and every stage it became before arriving at whatever they say it has become! THERE’S YOUR GAPS!

Oh, and spare me the lectures shrouded in intellectual terminology or the view questioning my understanding of the theory. I’ve lived through it!! Basically, the entire theory IS THAT SIMPLE!

Thankfully, I am young enough to study something else that is more important, and I pray Our Maker grants me one of those one days equals a thousand years thingys; or at least, lengthy, days!

 

[The_Barbarian]

Because,obviously,there would have to be new genetic information involved in the evolutionary process for humans to have evolved from another life form.

As you learned, new information appears every time there’s a mutation. Would you like me to show the numbers again?

Barbarian on the fact of human descent from other hominins:
Yep. It does. for a host of reasons. Anatomical, genetic, fossil, etc.

Scientists classified humans as primates before the theory of common descent was developed.

That was Linneaus who was indeed a creationist. But an honest and informed one:

I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character�by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none. I wish somebody would indicate one to me. But, if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I would have fallen under the ban of the ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I ought to have done so."

• Carl Linnaeus, Founder of Taxonomy, 1788

Surprise.

Barbarian, regarding the many polyploid species surviving in the wild:
But it does throw your “but they can’t survive in the wild” argument in the dumpster.

Not really. I was referring to the O. gigas.

OK, some polyploid species (maize, for example) can’t live in the wild, but most can. Next objection.

More accurately,micro-evolution - that’s all that the observed instances of speciation can demonstrate.

You’ve been misled again. Microevolution is variation within a species. Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa.

Barbarian observes:
Polyploid. And they evolved from diploid rodents. Just another part of common descent.

Polyploids belong to the same general species as their diploid parents

Wrong again. Species are interbreeding populations. These rodents and their sister species are more different genetically than humans and chimps.

Humans,and most other species,are not polyploids.

Technically, we are aneuploids. We speciated by the fusion of two chromosomes into one. Two of ours are very much like a single chimp chromosome, right down to the remains of telemeres at the fusion site. We didn’t evolve from chimps, of course, but we diverged from a common ancestor.

You’re going to have to do better than cite irrelevant examples of polyploids and hybrids and partial reproductive isolation to argue for the common descent theory.

We’ve made some progress. You’ve admitted that species formed by polyploidy can successfully live in the wild. And you seem to be almost there in realizing that new species don’t usually evolve by hybridization.

That is what common descent does.
It posits an imaginary kind of speciation

Wrong again. Several different forms have been directly observed.

Barbarian on Anthony’s distrust of data:
Some creationists look on examples the way a vampire regards a crucifix.

But science works on evidence. If you want to play basketball, don’t complain if they expect you to dribble.

The theory of common descent has to do not only with micro-evolution but with macro-evolution.

Right. It seems you’ve decided the only way out is to reclassify “microevolution” as evolution of new species. Seems like a tactical mistake. Since speciation is all that’s necessary for common descent, you’ve pretty much given up the farm on that one.

If it happened in the distant past,it should still be happening,according to the principle of normativism.

You mean “uniformitarianism?” Or is this some new kind of creationist story?

And no, that’s not what uniformitarianism means. Might be a good idea to go find out, um?

 

[IAmEdmund]

Science is the constant engagement between Observation and Inference.

Observation, in the scientific, is anything learned through the 5 senses.

Inference is any educated (reasonable based on evidence) guess based on observations.

Evolution is, at best, a theory. A theory is an `inference’ made on observations. No scientist worth their salt calls ANY theory a FACT! It is a theory, because that is ALL scientists can deal with. There are very very very few facts in science, guys. Gravity is one of them… get the idea?

Hence, when science is applied to the realm of scripture and or faith, there `seems’ to be this crashing fall that brings everything to a halt.

Here’s my take:

Science is the `best inferences at a given time based on observations’

Scripture, though at times demonstrably historical, is, in fact, a Love letter from God to his creation. It is NOT a science book, fact sheet, or list of observations.

To me, Science and Faith are the 2 eyepeices in the glasses we use to look at Creation.

There is no conflict, here. Evolution is a theory, short-time creationism is a theory… the face on Mars is a theory! (of which I actually attended a talk at an American Astronomical Society conference!.. it was hysterical!)

Bottom line: God made it, scientists get to guess at how He did it. (Personally, I think God enjoys watching us scientists try!)

 

[The_Barbarian]

Inference is any educated (reasonable based on evidence) guess based on observations.

No. An inference is a conclusion based on observations. An educated guess is a hypothesis, based on previous knowledge. When that hypothesis is tested, and data collected, an inference is made, and if it is confirmed by enough data from enough sources to make it reasonable to accept, it becomes a theory.

Evolution is, at best, a theory. A theory is an `inference’ made on observations.

A single confirmation is not enough to produce a theory. A hypothesis must be confirmed repeatedly, (preferably in several different ways) before it can be considered a theory. Theories are like laws in that they make predictions that have been confirmed. Theories are stronger than laws in that they not only predict things, but explain why they happen.

Kepler’s Laws, for example, predicted the orbital behavior of planets. Newton’s theory of gravity explained why it happened, and thereby explained all sorts of previously unrelated phenomena (such as an apple falling from a tree, which according to Newton was the spark that brought him the realization of the universality of gravity)

No scientist worth their salt calls ANY theory a FACT!

Then people like Einstein, Newton, Dobzhansky, etc. weren’t worth their salt. Scientists often informally refer to established theories as fact. Technically, observations are facts, and theories are ideas that successfully explain observations.

It is a theory, because that is ALL scientists can deal with. There are very very very few facts in science, guys. Gravity is one of them… get the idea?

Gravity, like evolution, is a fact. There are theories which explain the observations.

Evolution is a theory, short-time creationism is a theory…

No. Creationism is a religious belief. Religious beliefs do not need testing. They are received wisdom.

the face on Mars is a theory!

No. Remember, a theory must be supported by enough evidence to make it reasonable. It was a hypothesis, at best.