’s Unheard Argument Essay, Research Paper Creation’s Unheard Argument Since the 1960’s, evolution has been taught in schools and believed by a majority of people. One group has refused to believe in evolution, and it makes a strong opposition to Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory. This anti-evolutionary crowd which refuses to believe that man has evolved from apes, is called the creationist group.
’s Unheard Argument Essay, Research Paper
Creation’s Unheard Argument
Since the 1960’s, evolution has been taught in schools and believed by a majority of people. One group has refused to believe in evolution, and it makes a strong opposition to Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory. This anti-evolutionary crowd which refuses to believe that man has evolved from apes, is called the creationist group. Creationists believe that man was created by God and not by chance.
Popular science seems to side with evolution, and yet great scientists such as Galileo, Newton, Kepler, and Boyle were all faithful creationists (Matter and Motion 270-271). Granted, these men lived at a time before the theory of evolution was formed, but if their great minds could think of no other possibility than creation then that is a testament to creation. Both viewpoints deserve consideration, but creation shows more stability when tested by reason. The creation viewpoint explains man’s origin by presenting sound evidence.
Truthfully, creation, like evolution, is impossible to prove because we cannot go back in time to experience the beginning as it happened. Despite this fact, evolution is widely accepted. Since neither evolution nor creation can be proven, the two should be looked at objectively by using scientific evidence.
An argument for evolution claims that creation is too shaky; it is all faith. To such a comment, Australian geologist Arthur N. Fields says, “What is evolution based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen – belief in fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological evidence that does not exist, belief in the breeding experiments that won’t come off. It is faith ‘unjustified by works’” (qtd. in Matter and Motion 287).
Much of the evidence that supports creation has not been recognized. For instance, anthropologist Richard Leakey found a skull that was determined to be two point eight million years old. The skull was of a modern human. After finding the skull he said, “Either we toss out this skull, or we toss out our theories of early man” (qtd. in Matter and Motion 298). If man has evolved over time, why did a two-point eight million-year-old skull look the same as a modern day human’s skull? It is clearly evidence of creation because it is older than the evolution of man. This type of fossil is “misplaced” by evolutionists. They explain it as a fluke. Another example of a misplaced fossil would be footprints of a normal human next to footprints of a dinosaur (Morris and Parker 161-163). For evolution to be true, a fossil like that would be impossible, yet it has been found. Another problem with evolution’s time scale is the placement of a trilobite as the first organism. The trilobite was supposedly extinct long before man and yet a footprint of an ancient shoe contained the fossil of a squished trilobite (Wysong 379).
Charles Darwin was not a stranger to creationist fossil evidence. To fossil evidence he said, it was “perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which could be urged against the theory [of evolution]” (qtd. in Morris and Parker 130). Despite his words, Darwin chose to believe his theory, hoping that future generations would find the missing links. It has now been over one hundred and twenty years since Darwin founded evolution and still no evidence has been found (130-131).
Creation not only has an abundance of evidence of evolutionary animals living at times that contradict evolution’s time scale; it also has evidence of the proclaimed Great Flood. Evolutionists deny the Great Flood because, just like creation, it comes from the Bible, but creationists have evidence that proves that it occurred. Many trees that would have rotted if they did not have a quick burial have been found fossilized through several different evolutionary eras (Wysong 366). A Great Flood that misplaced a lot of mud and rock was needed to produce such a phenomenon. The evolutionary slow deposit theory just does not work. The evolutionary slow deposit theory states that layers of rock are formed through time with each layer belonging to a specific time. Fossils are dated merely by what level of rock they are in. An ammonite, which is a shellfish, has been found sticking through twenty million years of evolutionary time scale rock (Morris and Parker 168). Such evidence doesn’t bode well for evolution’s time scale. Evolutionists cannot deny the flood theory with such evidence. If the Flood occurred and it was related in the Bible, why shouldn’t creation be considered with the Flood?
Evidence for creation does not stop with fossils and evidence of the Great Flood. Science has some big problems with evolution. A law of science directly opposes evolution and agrees with creation. The Second Law of Thermodynamics clearly states that the universe is wearing down with time. That means that it would have to start at the highest point, which is equivalent to creation. Evolution, on the other hand, says that everything is becoming greater and more sophisticated (Matter and Motion 285). Science has another problem with the sophistication of life. A basic need of life is the existence of DNA. Dr. Eric Norman did work on combining DNA subunits and it took him many months to combine three units. A DNA molecule has millions of subunits. Dr. Norman’s process also required a water-free environment along with its high level of sophistication (Wieland and Doolan 29). This process required such precision that it is impossible to think that DNA just formed itself by chance as evolution claims. Furthermore, water is present everywhere in nature so how could chance even be considered? The process simply took a creator, and that creator is God.
A DNA molecule shows the great complexity of life and the probability of a creator, but the eye has some great and complex characteristics of its own. Charles Darwin himself said concerning the eye, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic observation, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree” (qtd. in Wagner 10). Darwin went on to say that he believed that it was possible that natural selection could have achieved this (Gould 1). Another amazing aspect of the eye is the tremors that are produced by the eye for proper sight. Tremors are circular movements that are one-thousandth of a millimeter in diameter. Thirty to seventy tremors are produced every second. These tremors allow one’s eyes to see objects that are not in motion (Wagner 11-12). With such amazing characteristics it is very hard to logically feel that the eye was made by chance. Darwin seemed to think that it could be done but he recognized how hard it would be to come to such a conclusion. In the case of the eye, logic has to side with creation.
The evidence that has been given for creation is quite persuading, and yet, evolution has some evidence of its own. Perhaps the greatest claim for evolution is the Archaeopteryx, a proposed half- reptile, half-bird. The Archaeopteryx is a full-feathered bird with teeth, claws, long legs, and a long tail. Because of these attributes evolutionist claim that the Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur that evolved and could fly (Monastersky 71). In addition to this bird, evolution has put together many claims for human ancestry. The claimed Neanderthal man had a big build, lacked a chin, and had distinctive brows (Begley 61). Neanderthal man also had limbs with thick bones, a brain case larger than modern humans, and odd facial features (Witze 26). Cro-Magnon man hunted, lived in a hut, made weapons, and even produced art on cave walls (Hughes 52). Nebraska man (Matter and Motion 297-298) and Homo erectus were also proclaimed to be “missing links” by evolutionists because of differences seen in their skeletons (Few Clues 15). These fossils are essential to evolution and they are generally believed. Are these really legitimate fossils?
Many people would take evolutionary evidence as the truth, but creationists have worked hard to try to find whether this evidence is real proof of evolution or just a myth. Creation has an explanation for the Archaeopteryx. The explanation is actually quite simple. The Archaeopteryx is just a bird. It has clawed wings, but so does the ostrich. It has teeth, but so did other birds of its time. Furthermore, many reptiles don’t have teeth, so the absence or the presence of teeth does not mean that the animal is reptilian. The Archaeopteryx is said to be a link between reptiles and birds, and yet there is no evidence of scales forming into feathers. The Archaeopteryx has complete feathers; it is an extinct kind of bird. Earlier bird fossils have been found, so the Archaeopteryx cannot be an ancestor of birds (Morris and Parker 135-138).
Creationists do not just leave proclaimed human ancestor evidence alone either. All evidence has been thoroughly examined. Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man are unbelievable according to creationists (Matter and Motion 298). The minor differences in appearance that these men have are not grounds to believe evolution. It is merely evidence that God has made us all different. Cro-Magnon life is different than modern human life, but it does resemble the life of other groups such as Indians. Likewise, Homo erectus has turned out to be a regular human being according to creationists (Few Clues 15). The skull that portrayed Java man, the first Homo erectus skull found, was knowingly found at the same place as a regular human skull. Despite this fact, for many years, Java man was considered man’s ancestor (Morris and Parker 154). Nebraska man was one of evolution’s big mistakes. The theory of the half- man, half-ape creature was developed from a solitary tooth. The problem came in when it was related that the tooth was that of an extinct pig (Matter and Motion 297).
Fossils were thought to play their part for evolution but creationists have shot them down. What about evolutions claim that science is on their side? Science argues that DNA and amino acids would have to eventually produce life due to acid-base reaction (Morris and Parker 38). It is thought that if the components of DNA were present, then DNA would have to eventually form because the components would fall into place by chance. Another argument science makes for evolution gives ages of the earth that are much greater than creation’s date. Yet another scientific argument for evolution is the presence of seemingly unnecessary organs of the body such as the appendix (Wysong 397). The presence of these organs is said to show that humans were once different animals that used these organs. Finally, evolution also puts forth the presence of similarities between animals that are on the same evolutionary family tree.
To add to evolution’s worries, science is not quite the friend it seemed to be. The proposed acid-base reactions between DNA and amino acids actually prevent the formation of life. Such a reaction would disarrange units and make nothing but a mess (Morris and Parker 38). As for those unneeded organs, science will not hold for evolution there either. The appendix is the most often used example, and yet it serves the purpose of preventing infection. True, the body can live without it, but it is still used when left in the body. A kidney can be removed without fatal result and it is not considered an evolutionary organ (Wysong 397).
Problems of evolution and science reach even further into the dates given to the earth. Some dates for the earth’s origin have been produced by using several different evolutionary methods. A problem appears when all the assumptions that were used to come to such numbers are revealed (Stoner 15-16). Dates of rocks seem to be filled with assumption. A fossilized footprint of a leather shoe with a double-stitch has been found in “Triassic” rock dated at two hundred and twenty five million years old (Wysong 381). A fossilized iron pot was also discovered in coal dated by evolutionary standards at three hundred million years old (373). Robert Lee recognized such problems and to them said “the troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious…. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted” (qtd. in Morris and Parker 14). One can see that dates are much more of a guess than a fact by understanding that there is no foolproof way to determine age.
To add to evolution’s problems, animal similarities also have some loop holes. The loopholes are those animal similarities that are unwanted by evolution; similarities like the human eye compared to the octopus eye. The two are more similar than the eyes of any of the animals on the proposed evolutionary tree of man (284).
Obviously, evolution claims much more than the facts support. This statement is realized when it is taken into account that a scientist named Patterson had studied evolution for twenty years and could not name one fact for evolution (59). Evolution does not have any missing links or perfect dating processes. All it has is imagination. Creation has all the answers and, despite popular belief, it has strong scientific evidence. God is the truth and Darwin was a mislead man with too much imagination.
Begley, Sharon. “The Caveman Convention.” Newsweek. May 1996: 61-63.
“Few clues to human evolution.” Creation ex nihilo. Sept.-Nov. 1994: 15.
Gould, Stephen Jay. “Common Pathways of Illumination.” Natural History. Dec. 1994.
Hughes, Robert. “Behold the Stone Age.” Time. Feb. 1995: 52-60.
Matter and Motion. Teacher Edition. Pensacola, FL: A Beka Books, 1994.
Monastersky, R. “Evolution’s Fast Track Toward Slow Flight.” Science News. 3 Aug. 1996: 71.
Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker. What is Creation Science?. El Cajon, CA: Master
Stoner, Peter W. Science Speaks. Chicago: Moody Books, 1958.
Wagner, Tom. “Darwin vs. the eye.” Creation ex nihilo. Sept.-Nov. 1994: 10-13.
Wieland, Carl and Robert Doolan. “Evolution ‘unscientific’.” Creation ex nihilo. June- Aug.
Witze, Alexandra. “Out of Africa.” Earth. Feb. 1996: 26-35.
Wysong, R.L. Creation-Evolution Controversy. Midland, MI: Inquiry Press, 1984
|◯||Creation Essay Research Paper Creation or EvolutionDuane|
|◯||Creation Essay Research Paper The Creation StoriesDid|
|◯||Creation Vs Evolution Essay Research Paper OutlineTitle|
|◯||Indian Creation Myths Essay Research Paper In|
|◯||Creation And Evo Essay Research Paper Creation|
|◯||Creation Myths Essay Research Paper The motifs|
|◯||Creatio Exnihilo Creation From Nothing Essay|
|◯||Evolution Vs Creation Essay Research Paper Creation|
|◯||Creation Vs Evolution Essay Research Paper Henry|
|◯||Creation Of An Original Myth Essay Research|
|◯||Creation Vs Evolution Essay Research Paper Creation|