Philosophical background to the dispute creationists and biologists is conflict between two kinds of knowledge: the scientific and religious. In principle, these two spheres of knowledge can not be compared to the rating. Can not say the truth one and the falsity of another. Just as, for example, can not relate the views of science and art of the flower, sunset. They are incommensurable. We can only note the different approaches of science and religion, science and art, limited each of them, but do not make comparisons at the level of validity, priority, etc.

A person standing on religious positions, believes that all wildlife is created by the Creator – it's his right, it is his faith. The man who thinks in Science, believes that the appearance and functioning of living organisms as natural as the development of galaxies, planetary systems, atoms, molecules. And this is also his right. Biologist hopes that in addition to "absolutely true" the answer to everything is already set and have not yet given the nature of the questions may be unambiguous answers, measurable unit testing and logical comprehension. Just as his time in science were answered many, many questions: "Why sunset and sunrise?", "On which hung the stars?", "Why deflected a magnetic needle?", Etc. Probably, there is a limit of scientific knowledge, the scientist will always believe that it can move, and will try to meet the challenges before him, the problem of scientific methods. In fact, after mentioning the will of the creator of the course knowledge stops immediately.