Creation And Evo Essay Research Paper Creation

Creation And Evo Essay, Research Paper

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