Root+49+is+the+root+of+realism

It's almost impossible to settle the creationism vs. evolutionism debate with the kind of rational train of thought explored in the Dover trial. For example, a 'study' can be twisted to show any result. The same applies with using scientific evidence. The body of empirically proven knowledge is so vast it's impossible to survey it in it's entirety. Thus, any 'scientifically derived' conclusion is the result of a biased selection of facts and studies. How can we settle the debate between creationism and darwinism without resorting to scientific evidence? It may seem impossible, or at least improbable. The solution lies in the societal and political purposes behind the two theories. The key differene between the theories of evolution and creationism is how they were created. The theory of evolution was developed from the ground up to answer a key question in science. The *scientific* theory of creationism was created to lend credibility to the *religious* theory of creationism so that it might combat the theory of evolution. Any theory developed under such a politically motivated pretense cannot be regarded with scientific credibility. It's kind of like infinity. Despite what you may think, there are larger infinities and smaller infinities. By the logic presented earlier in this narrative, neither theory can possibly be reliable. But one is less reliable than the other.