FREE ESSAY ON CREATION AND EVO

CREATION AND EVO

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 phantomsand figmentsof 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. 
Bibliography
none