Evolution or Creation Theory

The latter would seem to be the title of a work devoted to agricultural produces. Just that here it does not speak of "crops" but of "culture."
The reference is obviously to the superficiality that often characterises the approach of human sensibility towards things which regard the world, which is, as said, superficial.
This superficiality does not often allow us to fully see the aspects that surround us or, at least, relegates us to the simple role of men who are satisfied by what we learn or what we are told.
But science, just like faith, cannot grow (inside and outside of us) if it does not continually doubt in order to verify, mature, and assimilate better.
Returning therefore to the main title, we immediately have to report a serious scientific gap that has distinguished itself, above all in the last century, not so much as the result of a free and unconditioned Enlightenment, but, it seems to us, as the result of an exaggerated trust in the theory of evolution which in some respects has led to the extreme consequences of being scientifically (and mathematically) impossible.
In order to enter into the heart of the matter, not everyone perhaps knows that the debate between supporters of the theories of creation and of evolution, (which marked the beginning of the scientific model) has never been resolved and which, above all today, thanks to ever greater scientific knowledge and discoveries, is more open than ever.
Above all, the debate between scientific affirmations and theories is wide open.
In fact the discussion on the origins of life is not science in a narrow sense. This is due to the fact that the origins cannot be submitted to experimental verifications. When life began, or when the different types of organisms started to exist, scientific observatories did not exist. Besides these events no longer happen in the present world. Therefore, from a scientific point of view, the solution to the problem of the origins is impossible. The philosophical point of view of modern biologists with regards to the origins can be reduced to two: the doctrine of evolution and the doctrine of creation. The first affirm that life and its various forms have gradually appeared because of natural processes over long periods of time. The second believe that life in its principal forms instantly had its origin through the creative actions of the Creator himself.
Both the evolutionists and the creationists agree on the facts of present-day biology. The disagreement concerns the interpretation of the origins and the meanings of these facts.
Scientists use models to explain natural phenomena. Every proposed model is appraised according to its efficiency: how are the available data inserted in the model proposed for explaining a specific phenomenon?
In this way, even the two principal points of view which regard the origins can be summarized in an "evolutionist model" and a "creationist model". The model that better suits the available data will also be the most efficient and reasonable.
At this point it is useful to remember that some researchers have proposed a model that can be found half way between those mentioned above, accepting both the theories of evolution and creation. This position can be better understood after an evaluation of the two basic models. In any case, many scientists, both evolutionists and creationists, refuse this idea.
The coherent evolutionist affirms that if enough evolutionary processes exist to explain the data that we observe in nature - and he believes that they do exist - it is not then necessary to resort to creative processes. The creationist believes that it is necessary to postulate creative actions to explain the data coming from nature, and holds, therefore, that evolution is not necessary.
The two models are not compatible, if not at a very superficial level, since they diametrically represent two opposite points of view on the origins.