This is a reply to a comment on a YouTube video. The comment begins by stating that Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genisis, is not a scientist. Here are my thoughts:

First, I would like to agree to the statement, "he doesn't even consider theories that contradict his beliefs...he is not a scientist." However, the same can be said about many "scientists." I currently hold that both evolution and creationism are both theories. On both sides of this age old argument there is the same data. As a scientist, one must seek to constantly disprove his own theory. And here is a valid point; more often than not neither considers other options. The arguments I see are more concerned with trying to convert the other side than getting to the meat of the debate. One must come to the table with all the puzzle pieces that have been gathered, face-up and look at how the pieces fit together. This is made easier with a preconception of the picture one is trying to create. Since no modern scientist was at the conception of the universe, whether it was the Big Bang or God's word, any proposition to its conception must be rendered "not science" based on the definition of science as being observable. So, one must look at the evidences left behind, puzzle pieces, and try to, using those pieces,  predict what will happen next. Thus, looking at evolution theory one would see random series of events leading to the development of more complex systems arising from simple systems. Over the course of the 4.5 billion years since the earth began to cool, these systems became complex enough to "live." Life will here in be defined as the ability to move, reproduce, grow, metabolize, and respond. This is biology 101. And it is all consistent with current data. Over the course of several more great lengths of time, recognizable features began to appear and the taxonomic system begins to fill out quite nicely. According to this theory, this appearing of creatures over millions of years explains the fossil record. One of the last features to evolve was intelligence. This singular feature has pressed humans further than any other known being. For this theory to continue holding true, viable evidence must predict the likelihood of future biological events. Such events would be the gradual progression of life in a way that through natural selection life is found to be more well suited to its environment. There must be an up-scaling of genetic material that adds modifications to preexisting genes.

On the other hand is the creationist argument for a God designed and ran universe. This theory states that c. 6-10 thousand years ago God created all that currently exists. The first man and woman broke laws set up by their creator and thus were punished. After about 1-2 thousand years later the disobedience of God's set laws were so great, mankind was punished. This punishment was a global flood which was created by water rising under extreme pressure from under the central continent, thus causing the Pangaea split. The forces of the flood killed everything but the kinds of animals on the ark. The hierarchy of creatures in the fossil record is a display of which animals could evade the flood for longer periods of time. When the waters receded, great geological marvel had been accomplished: Grand Canyon, Sedimentary layers with rapid formed fossils, etc. The survivors then repopulated the earth. This, the theory says, explains the diversification due to natural selection over time. This theory predicts that genetic decay, due to original disobedience, will be found in modern day and into the future.

Now these are but a few points in each view, but the biggest question that is left may begin to shed light on these two ideas: What do we see today? Is information formed or lost? Is decay evident, or is progression? With all prejudice out of the way, what seems reasonable? Though I am a Christian, both seem possible. My bias leans to creationism, yet with the limited evidence for either view, Truth should still be sought. The more data that lines up with a given view assists it. Both have points that both support and disagree with their foundations. It is the theories that are closed. But as scientists, we must never stop looking!