Creationism vs. Evolution


In my short life on this planet I have come to question things 
that many take upon blind faith. We all know that we must some day 
die; yet we continuously deny the forces at work inside ourselves, 
which want to search out the answers of what may or may not come 
after. It is far easier for humanity to accept that they will go to a 
safe haven and be rewarded for their lives with pleasures and 
fantasies of an unfathomable scale than to question the existence of a 
supposed omnipotent being. Yet, there are a few of us humans who tend 
to question the why's and wherefore's that society puts forth to us. 
We question the existence of God, or the creation of mankind rather 
than blindly accepting faith-filled beliefs we may received from our 
parents as children. Perhaps it is because we live in a nation filled 
with many peoples of different beliefs whose Gods are all so varied 
and different that it is difficult to fathom that they are all the 
same divine being. It is also plausible that we just have a desire to 
quench the thirst for knowledge that lies deep within ourselves. As 
for myself, I cannot believe in a being which created a universe and a
multitude of worlds in a rather short period of time then deigns to 
lower itself into becoming a puppet-master and "pulling the strings" 
of the Earth and all of the people therein. 

 Since this paper touches upon many scientific terms, I feel 
that in order for the reader to correctly grasp the content I must 
first define three words: Theory, Law, and Hypothesis. The definitions 
will allow for a greater understanding of this essay and give us an 
even ground upon which to begin.

Theory; noun

1. a. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively 
wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, 
accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, 
predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified 
set of phenomena. b. Such knowledge or such a system.

2. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a 

Law; noun

1. a. A formulation describing a relationship observed to be 
invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the 
specified conditions are met: the law of gravity. b. A generalization 
based on consistent experience or results: the law of supply and 
demand; the law of averages.

Hypothesis; noun

1. A tentative explanation that accounts for a set of facts and can be 
tested by further investigation; a theory.

2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or 
investigation; an assumption.
 It is important that you thoroughly read the above definitions 
or you will be at a disadvantage if you do not. You will note that
there are several different definitions to each word. I felt it was 
important to include the added definitive statement to theory because 
it shows the difference between a scientific theory and an "everyday" 
theory based upon conjecture. The additional definitions to law and 
hypothesis are both added for a further understanding of these words.

 The definition of creationism is somewhat more complex. One 
must start by saying that the belief in the creation of the universe
given at the beginning of the Bible is literally true. Creationism is 
a belief based solely upon faith (which is a belief in and of itself). 
There are no scientific facts as a basis for this belief, solely 
conjectural theories and speculations. It is ingrained into our minds, 
as children that a belief of a force, or supernatural entity, which is 
all powerful and all knowing, is watching over us and taking care of 
our needs. Yet, to me, saying this very sort of thing is heretical in 
its very essence. To be so crude as to think that some being which 
created the universe itself and all things in it would take the time 
to care for each and every individual is incomprehensible. In 
practically all ancient cultures, the biblical included, the universe 
was thought of as an original chaos into which order had been 
introduced by a creative hand: This was the essence of creation.1 In 
this statement alone we can see one of the major flaws of creationism. 
While science can prove without doubt the universe up to the first 20 
milliseconds of existence, we cannot prove anything before that point 
at this time. The statement above, regarding creationism, suggests 
that there was no beginning, only chaos. Subsequently this "creative 
hand" structured the order of the universe out of chaos and applied 
physical laws to that chaos so it would form itself into motion and 
order. Yet, creationism as a whole does not touch base upon what came 
before the chaos. While science admits that there was a time in which 
different laws and order applied; creationism attempts to deny this 
existence by saying that there was always something. For if there was 
indeed a beginning and there was no God before this time, where did 
God come from? We can scientifically prove that there was a beginning. 
We cannot yet ascertain what was before this beginning, but we now 
know that there was one. To suggest that the universe has always 
existed is a mere myth today. Much like the myth that the world was 
once flat. Today, we take for granted that the world is indeed round, 
for have we not seen pictures from the space shuttle in orbit of the 
earth. Not to mention the multitude of orbital shots from satellites. 
Consequently we would consider it preposterous if someone attempted to 
tell us that the world is a flat surface. Yet, upon blind faith, some 
are content to believe that a "creative hand" structured this 
existence. Although the figures (Gods) differ from mythos to mythos, 
all the ancient stories intend simply to give a poetic accounting for 
cosmic origins.2

 In the scientific community there is a well known and accepted 
theory known as the "Big Bang Theory". Most people know of this theory 
because they were taught it in school. Yet it usually contradicted 
what their parents and pastors taught them in church. As a result, the 
Big Bang Theory was generally discarded as something that intellectual 
minds which cannot exist upon the true faith alone, must accept as 
truth. The Big Bang Theory is stated in condensed form as follows. As 
the universe expanded, the residual radiation from the big bang would 
continue to cool, until now it should be a temperature of about 3 K
(about -270ø C/-454ø F). This relic radiation was detected by radio 
astronomy in 1965, thereby providing what most astronomers consider to 
be confirmation of the big bang theory.3 In this statement we have our 
first of arguments over creationism by evolution. We have the 
beginnings of a proof that there was a time or rather, I should say, a 
point in time where there was indeed nothing.

 Many creationists will argue that the universe is too ordered; 
the path of the planets (which meant wanderers, or great wanderers in 
early Grecian society) is too ordered, too perfect. I will start by 
asking you to attempt to define perfect (as it existed at that time). 
In the creationalistic point of view, a person might write it off as 
the act of God. It was his divine will that moved the planets together 
in such a way as to be able to support life. Or you could ask the more 
worldly scientist who would explain to you about the Law of 
Probability, the Theory of Relativity, and show you lengthy 
mathematical equations dealing with Quantum and Theoretical Physics. 
In the end, you would likely have a headache of immense size, but come 
away with perhaps a better understanding of how the order of events, 
and the laws which created, ordered and structured the planets to
exist as they do. Many creationism fanatics will also attempt to 
dissuade the argument of evolution by saying that the Big Bang is 
merely a theory. The only reply that the scientific world can refute 
this with is the fact that relativity and gravity, are also theories. 
This argument by creationists is obviously not in their favor.

 The creation of the universe by scientific means is a 
world-wide theory that many creationists refute simply because it goes
against their beliefs. Yet to understand evolution to its fullest, we 
must further investigate life, or rather human life. We ask questions 
like: How did we evolve from amoebae? Are you trying to tell me that I 
evolved from an ape? If we are evolving in such a manner as described, 
why can we not see it daily? Since these are all very good questions, 
I will touch base upon them all.

 Approximately seven-hundred or eight-hundred million years ago 
life was first known on this planet in the form of single-celled
organisms called procaryotes, not amoebae. Over time these unicellular 
organisms diversified into an array of adaptive types. Scientists 
hypothesize that many advanced cells (eucaryotes) may have evolved 
through amalgamation of a number of distinct simple cell types. 
Single-celled eucaryotes then developed complex modes of living and 
advanced types of reproduction that led to the appearance of 
multicellular plants and animals. The latter are first known from 
about seven-hundred million years ago, and their appearance implies 
that at least moderate levels of free atmospheric oxygen and a 
relatively predictable supply of food plants had been achieved.4 
Through a long and drawn out process life eventually formed into that 
of mammals and dinosaurs. However, approximately sixty-five million 
years ago the dinosaur specie was completely eradicated (perhaps by
way of natural selection), which left only mammals.

 Approximately two million years ago humanity began to show its 
evolution in the order of the universe. Humans originally belonged to 
an order of mammals, the primates, which existed before the dinosaurs 
became extinct. This development of descending from tree habitats to 
forest floors and eventually to more open country was associated with 
the development of many unique features of the human primate, such as 
erect posture and reduced canine teeth, which suggests new habits of
feeding. However, while humanity did evolve from a primate ancestor, 
it did not evolve directly from an ape-like specie. Humans as well as 
apes both evolved from the same primate specie, but each branched in 
different directions to become apes in one specie and humans in 
another specie.

 Yet, you ask that if this is the case, and humanity has 
evolved from primates in such a short period of time, why can we not 
see the evolutionary process taking place today? The answer is a 
simple one. I know of no human which has lived for two-million years. 
Which in and of itself is not a very valid argument for this case, but 
nevertheless a substantial point at any rate. However, if we were to 
be more objective about the process of human evolution we would see 
that in the life span of the earth we are still a relatively young 
race. Dinosaurs, for example, inhabited this planet for over 
one-hundred-thirty-five million years. In relative view of this 
information, we can see that humans have only been in existence for 
approximately 1/60th of the time that dinosaurs existed. With this in 
mind, we can further grasp that the process of evolution is a very 
slow process which requires an almost incomprehensible scale of time 
to our limited lifespans.

 While I realize that many points, and beliefs were not touched 
upon in this essay I did attempt to cover as much ground as possible 
in as short a space as possible. It is painfully clear to me that an 
existence based upon blind faith is no longer an acceptable tradition. 
The ideas of creationism are far outweighed by the Laws and Theories 
of evolution. While there are understandably a great many men who have 
spent a vast amount of time in scribing the Bible, we must realize 
that they were indeed men, not Gods and the bible is, actually, only a 
book. To believe the contents of that book completely, one must have
unwavering faith in the validity of its concepts and the precepts upon 
which its religion is based. One of the striking and perhaps most 
intriguing points of interest that I have stumbled upon is the lack of 
education of creationism in schools. If the point was so very valid 
and without skeptical doubt, then why is it not being taught to our 
children? I understand the idea of separation between church and 
state, and the fact that the school is very much a part of state. Yet 
it seems to me that if the idea is a basic building block in today's 
society then why not teach this to the young? Why is it that we only 
teach evolution if it is so unbelievable? The simple fact of the 
matter is that we have evidence and supporting cases in science today 
which makes the very idea of creationism redundant to teach, as well 
as a contradicting view of evolution which could possibly confuse 
those of a younger age. There are many religions in the world upon 
which the bible are based, and the ones which espouse creationism are 
but a few. Being a western culture we tend to forget this.

 In summary I believe that evolution is the only plausible of 
these two theories which is acceptable to the current state of
humanity. In closing I leave you with a simple, yet disturbing 
statement that a great man once told me: "it is not what you believe; 
it's what you can prove." Creationism is based upon belief; evolution 
is based upon scientific proof. 

End Notes

1"Creation," Microsoftr Encartar 96 Encyclopedia. c 1993-1995 
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. c Funk & Wagnalls 
Corporation. All rights reserved.

2"Creation," Microsoftr Encartar 96 Encyclopedia. c 1993-1995 
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. c Funk & Wagnalls 
Corporation. All rights reserved.

3"Cosmology," Microsoftr Encartar 96 Encyclopedia. c 1993-1995 
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. c Funk & Wagnalls 
Corporation. All rights reserved.

4"Evolution," Microsoftr Encartar 96 Encyclopedia. c 1993-1995 
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. c Funk & Wagnalls 
Corporation. All rights reserved.


Quotes: Search by Author