Creation Vs. Evolution Essay, Research Paper

Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. The Scientific Case for Creation. Creation-Life Publishers, Inc. ? 1977.The Creation vs. Evolution debate has raged on since Darwin first proposed the evolutionary model. Often times this debate is pulled from the realm of scientific fact and observance into that of personal faith and lifestyle. The Scientific Case for Creation, by Dr. Henry M. Morris, is a book that attempts to address the issues from a purely scientific point of view. In fact the author states in his foreword that he is “leaving the theological and Biblical implications of both evolution and creation to other studies.” Dr. Morris is a proponent of the creation model and covers three main arguments in his book: the scientific impossibility of evolution, the inaccuracy of the fossil record and geologic column, and the relatively young age of the earth. Considering this book was written in the Seventies, I found its arguments very sound and convincingDr. Morris does a good job of isolating and identifying the main areas of importance in this controversy. First, the evolutionary model claims that the universe started in a very random state and increased in complexity and organization over time. For this to have occurred through natural processes, the universe would have to be approximately 30 billion years old and the earth about 5 billion. The creation model assumes the earth was created in a perfect state, therefore doesn’t need as long a history. A crucial point here is that evolution sees the world as increasing in degrees of order whereas creation sees the world as decreasing in degrees of order. Also Dr. Morris points out that neither model can be proven, creation because it was before recorded history, and evolution because it occurs at such a slow rate as to be unobservable.For evolution to be valid there would have to be an “innovative and integrating force” in the universe which could develop order from randomness. To date no such principle or force has been identified. Creation, conversely, relies on the principle that the universe is winding down and that a “conservative and disintegrative” principle is at work. These ideas have been proven and are known as the first and second laws of thermodynamics. This argument is probably one of the most convincing arguments against evolution. The laws of thermodynamics are so firmly entrenched in science that evolution must be reconciled to it not vice versa.Dr. Morris addresses the geologic column as unreliable because it reflects the chaos of a worldwide deluge. He believes the flood recorded in Exodus is what caused the striations of the geologic column and not deposition. As a result he believes the fossil records are unreliable as an indicator of the passage of time. Personally I had never considered the Flood as responsible for the geologic column, however the Dr. Morris makes a very sound case. Considering the author has a doctorate and minored in geology, I?ll give him the benefit of the doubt.In regards to radiometric dating, Morris contends that there are many studies that offer vastly different numbers for the age of the earth, and scientists pick the ones that offer the closest date to their theories. He offers as proof 70 different types of dating that put the earth?s age from 10,000 ? 500,000,000 years. His final argument is a mathematical computation of the odds of random elements arranging themselves in a pattern to spark life. It comes out to be 1: 10280. The grounds of this argument are unassailable. They are in fact somewhat liberal and don?t take into account this process having to be repeated many times to foster further evolution of organisms.The arguments proffered by Dr. Morris were well supported and well presented. For a book written based on science in the Seventies I found it to be very engaging as well as current. The doctor?s credentials are extensive and his research exhaustive. This book offers premises that cannot be ignored by a rational scientific mind. Personally I had all but given up on the young earth theory but this book offered some interesting points that made me seriously re-evaluate that particular view.