Creation vs. EvolutionEver since the publication of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species was published there has been an ongoing debate between science and religion. Scientists have formulated many theories as to the origins of man and to the creation of the earth, whereas religious groups have one main creation theory, based on the Genesis story of The Bible. These theories, however, are not the cause of the debate becausethe different theories are simply myths meant to explain the unknown– the debate iscaused by different belief systems.According to a November 1997 Gallup poll 44% of the people that responded agreed that God created human beings in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.
Based on the same poll 39% of the people said that human beings evolved from less intelligent life forms, but God guided this process. Only 10% of the people polled said that God had no part in the creation of human beings (Issues 394).The main difference between creationists and scientists is the way they fight this debate. Creationists have developed their own science: Creation Science.
Creation scientists look to prove that creation is right and science is wrong, providing selective interpretations of the fossil record. But their interpretations are exaggerated and foolish. Creationists will pick one scientific theory and do everything they can to point out it’s flaws, disregarding what they can’t prove wrong. They will often use emotions to control the public to their side.
They spend their time trying to discover false evolution rather than teaching their beliefs to the general public. The theory of evolution removes humans from the center of the universe, and religious followers can’t believe that their God, who created us in his image (Bible 2), would allow that. The creationist arguments can be summed up in one example from the Morris -Parker book.
They state Evolution is claimed to be ‘scientific,’ and still going on, so it seems like it should be observable and measurable. Yet after 150 years of intense study of biological variations, evolutionists are still completely in the dark about the supposed mechanism of evolution. This fact surely is cause for beginning to doubt the validity of the very concept of evolution (303). Words such as ‘claimed’, ‘should be’, and ‘supposed’ are very powerful, but they don’t give examples as to where and who claimed or supposed these things, nor do they seem to understand evolution.
In 150 years, the evolutionary change that would occur is insignificant, so it is very difficult to see such changes in such a short period of time, because they are completely ignoring the evolutionary time scale. Also, they don’t acknowledge that biologists have seen evolution occur, as in the case of moth’s wings changing color for protection against their prey. Morris and Parker are also blatantly attacking evolution as a science and as a fact (303). When Edward Larson did his research for his book Summer for the Gods: The Scopes trial and America’s Continuing Debate over Science and Religion, he found that the overall 95% of scientists admitted that they believed in evolution (Issues 394). Evolutionists mainly spend their time in the debate defending themselves. Evolutionists were not content to treat natural selection as simply an observable ecological process. They intended on making natural selection the touch-tone of a new philosophy, a religion without revelation(Morris and Parker 82).
Philip Yancey said that in the last few years astronomers have openly admitted to under estimating the number of galaxies by fifty billion or so and missing the age of the universe. They teach the correct evolution (no, we did not evolve from monkeys). It is at times difficult to teach correct evolution to the public because the details of evolution can be very technical. For example, saying that evolution is caused by molecular variation of mitochondrial DNA throughout periods of ‘statis and anastatis’ in a multigenerational time scheme (Conroy 51) would confuse and frustrate the general public. Perhaps the reason why creation scientists have so much influence is because the average American knows very little if any about science theories and thought.
The public would much prefer emotional appeal over technical details. unfortunately for scientists, most of them don’t know how to speak emotionally and get their information across at the same time. Simply throwing out facts and figures does not make a case. Mirsky has an example that may catch the attention of thecreation scientists.
He said, these are strange times, when a controlled chain reaction of uranium 235 atoms can be used to convert water to steam in order to drive turbines to generate electricity used to provide power to a television set to that a Jimmy Swaggart can reach a fallow mind with the news that Earth is really only a few thousand years old(11,42). Mirsky’s clever quote can be spiritless to religious believers, but he does make a very good point. Yes, some scientists use clever slander to show false creation, but the majority stay well within the regions of what they know.
Scientists generally behave differently when defending their theories to creationists. Instead of trying to disprove creation and interest the common people, evolutionary scientists try to piece together the past and explain why we evolve in the ways that we do. Although both sides of this issue present well thought out arguments, they are still spending too much of their time fighting against each other rather than furthering their own knowledge. For example, the Alabama Board of Education requires all textbooks that mention evolution to carry a disclaimer warning that evolution should be considered as theory, not as fact (Issues 395). The concept of evolution in textbooks is based on phantomsand figmentsof the human imagination and not on fossils and facts of science (Morris and Parker 142).
If they stop criticizing each other and focus their attention on gathering and processing information, they could find the proof that would end this debate. Perhaps faith should be kept in the home and church and true science should be kept in the laboratories. Because it’s not likely evolutionists will convince creationists that evolution is a fact, and nothing creationists say will change what evolutionists believe either. In the end people will believe what they choose.Religious believers have a tendency to believe that only their theories can becorrect. Scientists believe their own theories, but will abandon them if a new theory comes along with better evidence to support it. Creationists only have one source to prove their theory correct: the Genesis story.
They believe simply through faith in TheBible. If you adopt design it opens a new world of questions and discussions. Scientists, on the other hand, have an abundance of fossil skulls, fauna, and other biological and ecological specimens to prove that evolution exists. Scientists work to prove their theories wrong in order to find the true answers.
The creation science argument has constantly said that what they do is use scientific evidence to show that creation happened, but what they are really doing is trying to prove evolution wrong. Evolution, properly understood, can only enrich and add to our faith in a loving, dynamic creator. Evolution does indeed exist, but only because God created it. A major argument states that if evolution is correct, it is purely an accident. All of the facts of evolution, much like the facts of reproduction, are no less astonishing for being natural; because if that was the case the evolutionist would be just as amazed with the laws of nature. The scientific claim is that the origin of the universe and everything within it just randomly happened. It is suggested that creation science is a controlled accident, using the hand of the creator as the controller.
However, instead of examining the actual evidence, creationists explain the scientific side of the issue by taking small bits and pieces of evidence and quotes from scientists to back up their claims.and has been proven time and time again with examples such as the jaw bones of reptiles migrating over thousands of years into the ear bones of mammals and the human anatomy showing that we were once long ago quadrupeds. Theories are in debate about the processes of evolution. The only thing that is being questioned and has not been proven is the history of species.
For example, human evolutionary theories have one through a great history of change because of new evidence. At first it was thought that Neanderthals, a prehistoric human ancestor from Europe, were part of the lineage that led to modern humans. Now it is believed that they are strictly a side group that became extinct. Discovery of new fossils more similar to humans but from the time period of Neanderthals have made scientists question their original beliefs, but they don’t question evolution itself. Writer Stephen Barr put the way science is based the best. He said, Science derives and explains order by order.
He also said that God has brought all things including the earth’s common ancestors into existence through creation (14) . Theories surrounding the processes of evolution will undoubtedly continue to change with political movements and new evidence, but it will take a lot to disprove evolution whether it is caused by natural forces or by some higher power, it still exists. Life on earth-however it began-has evolved and will continue to do so, regardless of what a scientist and/ or a religious group wants to happen. In order for this debate to ever end, some common ground must be reached.
Eitherone theory or the other has to be ultimately proved beyond the shadow of a doubt,but there is an incredibly small chance of that happening. Even if it were to happen,to prove either side, there would still be disbeliveers and those who think the evidence is a hoax. BibliographynoneScience Essays