|
_creation and evo _
By: doug
Creation vs. Evolution Ever 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 because the different
theories are simply myths meant to explain the unknown-- the debate is caused
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 the creation 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 "phantoms"and "figments"of 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 be correct. 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 The
Bible. 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.
Either one 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.
Word Count: 1654
|
