I voted for Biblical creationism.
Of course my system of belief has changed over the decades. I was taught, in the public education system, that evolution was absolute fact. At one time I too believed that to be the case.
For me it delves down to two opposite systems of belief; neither is completely void of supporting evidence, but one (system of belief) demands that I willingly ignore both the blatantly obvious and that which is missing but should be there.
My change (in belief) began some 25 years ago when a friend (she is deeply religious) and I had a lengthy discussion on this very subject. I went into that discussion quite sure of my position and left it with far more questions than answers. As is my normal reaction to such things, I began to research the issue as much as I possibly could.
Among my first observations was that those espousing evolution tend to depend heavily upon very questionable presumptions in order to tidy up their theory. That didn't seem very scientific to me, especially since those questionable presumptions cannot be replicated and observed.
In fact, the more I researched the theory of evolution, the more I became convinced that it was nothing more than a religion of sorts - though it held absolutely no promise of salvation or redemption.
A major tenet of the theory of evolution is that life changes (oftentimes dramatically) to cope with outside influences. That certainly appears to be sensible and is observable to an extent. But a problem arises when it comes to dramatic changes or major alterations in life as we know it.
That problem is time.
The one constant is change - be it the weather, or food sources, or disasters. Our surroundings (environment) are constantly changing and those changes are frequently dramatic changes.
We don't see those rapid, dramatic, changes (in life-forms). It isn't observable in the fossil record and it isn't observable in life. But it should be.
What we do see is adaptation - within the limits of that life-form to adapt to the ever-changing surroundings/environment.
Evolutionists attempt to explain that away by claiming dramatic life-changing alterations (of a life form) need time.... lots and lots of time. That simply isn't a possibility when the environment changes rapidly (which it often does).
The fossil records show us extinctions and new, fully formed and fully functional life-forms. What it doesn't show is that which would have to be there if the theory of evolution were even halfway correct - thousands upon thousands of in-transition fossils for every one fully formed and functional fossil. Remember - change is the one constant, and if the theory of evolution were correct; dramatic change (in life-forms) would be a constant.
Those few fossils which mankind has classified as transitional life-forms are far more likely to be fully formed, functional, animals that just happened to go extinct. Science is riddled with examples of false assumptions. The fact that we humans think there might possibly be a connection of some sorts (based on our desire to connect the two) is little more than proof of our imaginations.
Irreducible complexity.
Even the most simple of life forms are so complex that we humans don't begin to understand how (or why) such complexity came to be.
A simple mousetrap is an example (one that is far easier to understand) - take away one part and the mousetrap fails to work. In other words - all the parts have to be there, and they all have to work correctly, for the device to work at all. The trap itself is irreducible - the sum of the parts is the whole.
As we know, the mousetrap didn't come to be by happenstance; it was designed (and built) with intelligence.
Now suppose you were suddenly confronted by outside forces that required you to build a working mousetrap - or die. You don't have a lot of time to build that mousetrap, and you cannot afford a trial and error method; it has to work correctly the very first time. Making matters worse: nobody in the entire world has ever seen (or made) a mousetrap.
Energy expended on dead ends is a dead end. Almost all mutations are either harmful or (at best) not helpful to the life-form.
A mousetrap is simple, yet irreducibly complex. Our senses are incredibly complex: irreducibly so, yet each one would have to develop all the parts (at the same time) through a series of mutations (that didn't harm the life-form) so as to give the life-form an advantage in the ever-changing environment. Waste energy on a dead-end and the experiment fails - the life-form is extinct.
Reproduction.
Build a better mousetrap and the ladies beat a path to your door (in theory anyway).
The problem with that theory is the fact that different is... well different to many life-forms. Unless that difference is a decided advantage, the different life-form is likely to be shunned by the lady life-forms.
The would-be father - by way of expending energy on his mutations - is now hobbled by the fact that he has less energy available to expend on things like finding food... or mates. And that's a best-case scenario.
But let's suppose our Romeo does, somehow, convince the ladies that he's a worthy suitor; now his mutations are passed onto his offspring. In the case of irreducible complexity, those offspring would have to have their own mutations (that not only didn't harm them, but also supplied the missing parts necessary for the mutations to be beneficial). Anything less and the experiment fails. The mutation is either meaningless, is bred out of the future populations, or it kills the hosts.
Science
Mathematics is science. And mathematics tell us that evolution - Darwin's version anyway - is a statistical impossibility. At least one statistician has likened the theory of evolution to a tornado ripping through a salvage yard and assembling (from the scrap) a fully functioning Boeing 747.
Not only is that a statistical impossibility - it can't happen, it won't ever happen.
If the theory of evolution were correct, we'd see it happening on a daily basis. There are (literally) trillions upon trillions of opportunities every second of every day - change is the constant. We'd see life-forms in transition constantly - in fact that would be the norm.
Instead we see adaptation within the limits of that life-form's ability to adapt. That's what we see in the fossil record too - adaptation, extinctions, and new, fully formed, fully functional life-forms. We don't see in transition life-forms at all.
I voted for Biblical Creationism.
Why?
I cannot subscribe to the theory of evolution: that belief system simply doesn't make sense to me and I find it to be easily disproved.
My support for Biblical Creationism is founded in my own experiences, observable surroundings, and the fact that, for me, it just makes the most sense.
If I've offended anyone, I apologize.
It is not my intent to offend, nor is it my intent to convince you that my beliefs are superior. I merely offer my thoughts as a reply to the request given by the OP and I have attempted to give a reason for those thoughts.
