So where does all of this leave us?

  Let us first consider the difference between fact and opinion: Many ultra-relativists (some postmodern philosophers) make the fundamental error of confusing the meaning of fact with that of opinion. A fact is something that holds true no matter where you are or who you are. This is an objective truth, in other words, something that doesn't depend on your thoughts or desires to be true. Gravity works whether you like it or not. An opinion, on the other hand, is a relative truth. I like chocolate ice cream. You might prefer strawberry, you infidel. The statement "chocolate is the best flavour of ice cream" is only true as it applies to me.

  If I say that I feel that evolution is the underlying mechanism for the diversity of life, this is based on many pieces of evidence, and not because I wish it so. Those who say that there is room for evolutionists and creationists are overcompromising. They might say: "Yes, these are mutually exclusive explanations, but they are simply opinions and therefore equally valid." One however is supported by evidence, and the other not. Evolution, or creationism for that matter, are not simply held to be relatively true by their proponents. Both sides claim that their versions are objective truths. They, however, cannot both be correct. The facts are these: evolution and the decent of species by this process are supported by so much repeated, independent evidence whereas creationism is supported by anecdotal evidence and faulty arguments. Using Occam's Razor, the simplest conclusion is that evolution is and has been happening, and that human beings are animals that have descended from a very rich living heritage known as life on Earth.

  It is important to agree on certain premises when having a discussion with someone. If one person introduces Bible quotations as evidence, but the other person doesn't recognise them as relevant, then you cannot proceed. You have no common premise. If a proponent of evolution and a believer in creationism enter into a debate, they should state their agendas. If the agenda is in all sincerity to work together to find out what is and what isn't, then this is a foundation from which to build. If one or both sides are simply out to humiliate the other and to preach to their own respective choirs, then there really is not much point in proceeding. Although it is difficult for any of us, if someone points out a logical fallacy that we have committed, we must accept it and move on. We are all fallible; none of us is immune to error. We have the tools (logic, science, imagination, curiosity) to figure out things. If we don't use them, then how will we ever know anything?