| Creation And Evolution Essay, Research Paper
Creationism vs. Evolution, the argument disputed by more scientists, more
paleontologists and more everyday people than probably any other argument since
the dawn of man. Who is right? Do the theories and evidence of evolutionists
have the right answers or do the faith and facts of creationists hold the
answers? What is creationism? ?Creationism? is the idea that all forms of
life, and particularly humans, were independently created by a willful act on
the part of God or a deity. What?s wrong with creationism? That depends on
what form of creationism you are referring to. There are several forms of
creationism that all differ from one another. None are really scientific, though
not all are unscientific to the same degree. ?Old earth creationism? holds
that the earth was created a very long time ago and populated with life
more-or-less shown in fossil records. However, new species of organisms were
created one-by-one over all that time, each the result of a separate creative
act by the Deity. This theory is not scientific, because it cannot be falsified;
any evidence can be made to fit into it. ?Sequential creationism? says that
the earth is old, and the major groups of fossils do reflect organisms living at
different times in earth?s history. However, the major mass extinction
represent times when all living things were destroyed, and then the earth was
repopulated by a new creative act. The last extinction happened recently, after
which the current animals and humans were created, but this isn?t scientific
either. Sequential creationism simply doesn?t agree with the evidence. None of
these mass extinction?s wiped out all life. In many cases, we find the same
species of organisms both before and after the extinctions. ?Day-age
creationism? says that the book of Genesis is accurate in describing the order
of creation, but that each ?day? in Genesis actually represents a long
period of real time. This position also runs out of evidence, primarily because
the order of creation as given in Genesis doesn?t agree with the order as
shown in fossil records. Of all the different forms of creationism
?young-earth creationism? is the worst. This is the position that most of
the politically active creationists hold. Young-earth creationists demand a
literal reading of Genesis. They insist that the earth is less than ten thousand
years old; that it and all life were created in just six twenty-four-hour days;
and that the entire fossil record is a result of Noah?s flood. Other forms of
creationism are simply different interpretations of the known geological and
fossil evidence. Only young-earth creationism requires its believers to either
reject or rewrite most of the hard sciences. Atomic physics, astrophysics, most
of geology, most of paleontology, much of biology and nearly all of genetics
would have to be torn down for young-earth creationism to be true. If this were
true then all the fossil evidence, researchers, scientists and many others
supporting evolution are not only wrong, but also have wasted centuries of time
and research. There are absolute arguments to disprove the theories of
evolution. The first being that evolution cannot take place unless random
mutations occur, but in the case of advanced animal defense mechanisms, random
mutation cannot produce them. An example of this would be a particular beetle
called the bombardier beetle. This particular beetle houses two chemical tanks
in its body which are used for the purpose of self-defense. When a predator
attacks the beetle, the two different chemicals in the tanks are sprayed out
from the beetle. They combine in the air and create a hot chemical explosion in
the face of the predator insuring the beetle?s survival. According to
evolution when the very first mutation appeared and the chemical tanks were just
beginning to form but were not yet functional, they would not provide any
survival benefit to the beetle. It would take many thousands of mutations over
millions of years to produce the end mechanism, but since mutations are random,
they could never follow a pattern to produce an end result, especially since the
mechanism would not provide any survival advantage until it was fully developed.
Evolution just simply cannot work! A current modernized example would be like
copying a computer program on a computer that randomly changes one byte during
each copying process. You could copy the program a million times but all you
will get is a nonfunctioning program, not a program with more features. Life
forms can adapt and change within a species because God built into their DNA the
possibility of many variants, but one species can never evolve past these limits
into another totally different species. The second argument against the theory
of evolution is all observed mutations cause a loss of DNA information.
Scientists of creationism and non-creationism both show examples of the loss of
DNA information. All experiments in the laboratory that involve the DNA of
mutated specimens always show a loss of DNA information, for evolution to truly
take place there must be the addition of new data to the DNA chain, yet this has
never been the case. In fact many evolutionists always show animals that have
lost some feature and hold that up as an example of evolution. Thirdly, no
intermediate fossils have been found to support evolution?s theory that we
evolve through stages. An eye-opening example is if evolution were true there
should be numerous examples of animals which are between mutated stages. There
has never been a fossil discovered that shows how wings develop, never a fossil
of a creature whose forelimb is half way between an arm and a wing, yet
evolutionists base recreated creatures on these premises. In finding common
ground in evolution and creation it should be mentioned that science itself can
only deal with how the universe operates or works, because this is what we can
actually observe and test. The subject of the origin of life and the universe is
outside the scope of human observation and, therefore, does not technically come
under the definition of science. Since no human was present to observe the
universe coming into existence by chance or evolution, and no human was present
to observe the universe coming into existence by design or creation, both
evolution and creation are, ultimately, positions of faith and not science. So
whether creationist or evolutionist the believer must be a person of faith.
|