FREE ESSAY ON CREATION AND/VERSES EVOLUTION

CREATION AND/VERSES 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.
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). The use of words such as 'claimed', 'should be', and
'supposed' all are very powerful words, 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. It is very difficult to see
such changes in such a short period of time. They are completely ignoring the
evolutionary timescale. Also, they don't acknowledge that biologists have seen evolution
occur, 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. 
Evolutionists mainly spend their time in the debate defending themselves. 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 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 . 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 about. 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. 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. Or
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. 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.
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 is that if evolution is correct, it is purely an accident. 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. 
Within the scientific group, evolution has been widely accepted as fact. It exists 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 gone 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.
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 supreme being, it still exists. Life on
earth-however it began-has evolved and will continue to do so, impervious to the carping
of member of one religious sect on one planet in one minor solar system on the edge of
one galaxy. 
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 disbelievers and those who think the evidence is a
hoax. 
References Cited: 
Bible, The 1995. King James Version. Harper Paperbacks, New York. 
Conroy, Glenn C. 1997. Reconstructing Human Origins. WW Norton & Company, New York. 
Dawkins, Richard. 1995. River Out of Eden. BasicBooks, HaperCollins, New York. 
Mirsky, Steven D. 1988. Standing on the Shoulders of Midgets The Humanist, Jan/Feb
1988(11, 42). 
Morris, Henry M. and Parker, Gary E. 1987. What is Creation Science?. Master Books, El
Cajon, CA.
Bibliography
References Cited: 
Bible, The 1995. King James Version. Harper Paperbacks, New York. 
Conroy, Glenn C. 1997. Reconstructing Human Origins. WW Norton & Company, New York. 
Dawkins, Richard. 1995. River Out of Eden. BasicBooks, HaperCollins, New York. 
Mirsky, Steven D. 1988. Standing on the Shoulders of Midgets The Humanist, Jan/Feb
1988(11, 42). 
Morris, Henry M. and Parker, Gary E. 1987. What is Creation Science?. Master Books, El
Cajon, CA.