Creationism vs. Evolution, the argument disputed by more scientists, morepaleontologists and more everyday people than probably any other argument sincethe dawn of man.
Who is right? Do the theories and evidence of evolutionistshave the right answers or do the faith and facts of creationists hold theanswers? What is creationism? “Creationism” is the idea that all forms oflife, and particularly humans, were independently created by a willful act onthe part of God or a deity. Whats wrong with creationism? That depends onwhat form of creationism you are referring to. There are several forms ofcreationism that all differ from one another. None are really scientific, thoughnot all are unscientific to the same degree.
“Old earth creationism” holdsthat the earth was created a very long time ago and populated with lifemore-or-less shown in fossil records. However, new species of organisms werecreated one-by-one over all that time, each the result of a separate creativeact 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 thatthe earth is old, and the major groups of fossils do reflect organisms living atdifferent times in earths history. However, the major mass extinctionrepresent times when all living things were destroyed, and then the earth wasrepopulated by a new creative act.
The last extinction happened recently, afterwhich the current animals and humans were created, but this isnt scientificeither. Sequential creationism simply doesnt agree with the evidence. None ofthese mass extinctions wiped out all life. In many cases, we find the samespecies of organisms both before and after the extinctions. “Day-agecreationism” says that the book of Genesis is accurate in describing the orderof creation, but that each “day” in Genesis actually represents a longperiod of real time. This position also runs out of evidence, primarily becausethe order of creation as given in Genesis doesnt agree with the order asshown in fossil records. Of all the different forms of creationism”young-earth creationism” is the worst. This is the position that most ofthe politically active creationists hold.
Young-earth creationists demand aliteral reading of Genesis. They insist that the earth is less than ten thousandyears 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 Noahs flood. Other forms ofcreationism are simply different interpretations of the known geological andfossil evidence. Only young-earth creationism requires its believers to eitherreject or rewrite most of the hard sciences. Atomic physics, astrophysics, mostof geology, most of paleontology, much of biology and nearly all of geneticswould have to be torn down for young-earth creationism to be true. If this weretrue then all the fossil evidence, researchers, scientists and many otherssupporting evolution are not only wrong, but also have wasted centuries of timeand research.
There are absolute arguments to disprove the theories ofevolution. The first being that evolution cannot take place unless randommutations occur, but in the case of advanced animal defense mechanisms, randommutation cannot produce them. An example of this would be a particular beetlecalled the bombardier beetle. This particular beetle houses two chemical tanksin its body which are used for the purpose of self-defense. When a predatorattacks the beetle, the two different chemicals in the tanks are sprayed outfrom the beetle. They combine in the air and create a hot chemical explosion inthe face of the predator insuring the beetles survival. According toevolution when the very first mutation appeared and the chemical tanks were justbeginning to form but were not yet functional, they would not provide anysurvival benefit to the beetle. It would take many thousands of mutations overmillions 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 themechanism would not provide any survival advantage until it was fully developed.
Evolution just simply cannot work! A current modernized example would be likecopying a computer program on a computer that randomly changes one byte duringeach copying process. You could copy the program a million times but all youwill get is a nonfunctioning program, not a program with more features. Lifeforms can adapt and change within a species because God built into their DNA thepossibility of many variants, but one species can never evolve past these limitsinto another totally different species. The second argument against the theoryof evolution is all observed mutations cause a loss of DNA information.Scientists of creationism and non-creationism both show examples of the loss ofDNA information. All experiments in the laboratory that involve the DNA ofmutated specimens always show a loss of DNA information, for evolution to trulytake place there must be the addition of new data to the DNA chain, yet this hasnever been the case. In fact many evolutionists always show animals that havelost some feature and hold that up as an example of evolution. Thirdly, nointermediate fossils have been found to support evolutions theory that weevolve through stages.
An eye-opening example is if evolution were true thereshould be numerous examples of animals which are between mutated stages. Therehas never been a fossil discovered that shows how wings develop, never a fossilof a creature whose forelimb is half way between an arm and a wing, yetevolutionists base recreated creatures on these premises. In finding commonground in evolution and creation it should be mentioned that science itself canonly deal with how the universe operates or works, because this is what we canactually observe and test. The subject of the origin of life and the universe isoutside the scope of human observation and, therefore, does not technically comeunder the definition of science. Since no human was present to observe theuniverse coming into existence by chance or evolution, and no human was presentto observe the universe coming into existence by design or creation, bothevolution and creation are, ultimately, positions of faith and not science. Sowhether creationist or evolutionist the believer must be a person of faith.