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.