creationists vs evolutionists

A Russian, a Fin , an Indian and a Pakistani during a lunch break in an architecture training got into a discussion over the grand-architecture , the big picture, the begining of time, the ultimate question, the answer to everything.
The instant the topic evolved out of the sizzling steak, I knew it, ..I should have just shouted "42!" >>whats 42<< and ended it there...but my lunch was too greasy to stop anything...

The Indian was a full swing creationist, the Russian and Fin supporting the theory of natural selection and the Pakistani accepting the evolution with exception of humans.

An interesting mix it turned out to be. Specially since a Russian is to a Finn what an Indian is to a Pakistani or the other way round.. But when idealogies and theologies are discussed the borders tend to move up and be drawn on the metaphysical and spiritual lands.

The problem with the creationists or the hard core ones is that they refuse to accept the ground reality, the known facts. On the other hand the evolutionists tend to indulge in arrogance by extrapolating their limited knowledge which is accquired from limited senses, known for only a limited domain over the entire grand-architecture.

The discussion was all the more fascinating when done in the context of architectural system design.
The basic principle of "where there is somke, there is fire" must never be overlooked when studying a system. Unfortunately evolutionists and creationists both tend to miss that by miles...

I for one am forever fasicnated specially with the plant kingdom. The plants do not have a nervous system or intelligence mechanism like animals, that give them a perception of their surroundings, yet they are aware of what colors to make their flowers, what fragrance to put in them, what taste to put in their fruit to be attractive to animals.

"Subtal is the Lord" said enistine, and a good point he had there. The devil is in the details they say,,but I would amend that to "the God is in the details"
One cant just make assumptions about the unknown and stamp them as facts. The best thing to do would be to accept that there is lot we do not understand and hence the process of discovery continues..
Refusing to accept exsistance of what we do not understand is stupidity at best and arrogant misleading at worst.