Creationism vs. Evolutionism

The theory of evolution suggests that everything comes from a common physical ancestor that continued to evolve until its evolution cycle culminated in the biological diversity that everyone recognizes today. Under no circumstance must anyone fully discard the theory of evolution, provided the fact that some of its proposals have been proven and are part of the intelligent design theory. The theory of evolution should replace postulates like the macroevolution (evolutionary transition from one specie to another [an example would be from a snake into a horse]), the lack of beginning for the universe, and many other postulates posted by Charles Darwin and many other recognized advocates of evolutionism as the origin of life with the logical understanding that the universe was created with an ID (intelligent design), that it has continued tending toward disorder, and that every specie has continued to adapt its lifestyle through microevolution (the process of adapting through small changes at the genetic scale without changing the specie’s definition [as an example a hair color change to adapt body temperature or a skin color change to adapt body heat]).

Evolution would be filled with inexplicable gaps without the Bible’s existence. Even Darwin affirmed “when the evidence was not sufficient to support his positive case […] that the only alternative–the ‘theory of creation’–was not a scientific explanation”(Wells 67). Then, what is evolution without the Bible? The answer would be that evolution is a mere effort to deny the undeniable by filling the middle of the story with arguments that embrace creationism without even knowing. Evolution can barely explain the beginning of the universe. When an evolutionist is questioned about how the universe started, he answers one of two things: the universe had no beginning, or he takes refuge in the Big Bang theory (Zacharias 45). The first answer could be debated either philosophically or scientifically. The philosophical law of our universe that proves it wrong would state that “the impossibility of an infinite number of moments”(Zacharias 47) exists because our present would not exist. The scientifically proven argument would be that “according to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is running out of usable energy”(Zacharias 47), therefor the universe had a beginning.

The second answer posted by almost every evolutionist when questioned the origin of the universe, the Big Bang theory, is now acting as one of the most usable arguments by Creationism. When an evolutionist uses the argument of the Big Bang as a scientific argument, he must assume that matter and energy exist (based on the law of conservation of mass and energy [energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed]). This two must work in a coordinated way to produce a collision of the entire energy and matter in a single point, and then randomly arranged every atom in a specific way. When Creationism embraces the Big Bang theory, it simply takes the assumption made by Evolutionism and names it as God. God, defined as the coordinator that gave the initial push for the cause-and-effect reaction and then arranged the structure of every atom, makes perfect sense when looked as just a replacement name for matter and energy working coordinately. Even Charles Dawkins speaks of what Francis Collins recognizes as God as “something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding”(6) at an interview made by TIME Magazine at 2006.

     Everything suggests that the universe had a beginning, but everything needed to prove it leads to a deity, in this particular case receiving the name of God as stated in the Bible. The series of steps needed to describe the posture that the universe had a beginning and was caused to be by an uncaused something are clearly stated by J. Warner Wallace in his webpage, Please Convince Me, in the article, Evidence for God from Creation. By the previously discussed evidence, the conclusion that the universe had a beginning is conceived, but, that being stated, everything that had “a beginning must have been caused by something else”(3), this is assumed by the Principle of Causality (the agency of a cause; the action or power of a cause, in producing its effect [Webster 1828]). After fusing the last two statutes, the fact that the universe must have an uncaused, eternal cause (if the cause had a cause then anyone trying to understand this would return to the starting point and continue a cycle which would inevitably end in an eternal cause for every cause), the conclusion is that the cause is a deity which is recognized as eternal and uncaused; therefore, Creationism names that deity God (3).

Understanding that the universe must have a Creator, how do I prove the existence of an intelligent Creator? The answer can be imagined like when someone sees the Mona Lisa. Everyone who views it appreciates what is believed to be a Leonardo da Vinci’s painting and not a simple, random occurrence. The Mona Lisa was planned and developed by a designer, da Vinci. The same rational thinking can be applied to the universe because everything follows a certain structure and intelligently reasons to a rational life structure and a defined cosmo-vision. (Cosmo vision is simply the way an individual visualizes the cosmos and everything within it). Intelligence is defined by the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary as the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations; therefore, humans are intelligent. For humans to be intelligent, someone, or something, with superior, or equal, intelligence had to design them. This is true because by logic no one can generate something of superior intelligence than the one possessed by that individual.

The theory of evolution has at least one chance to say that it is true and that chance is acceptable from a non-statistical view point. To give evolutionism a greater possibility, one planet could have been randomly created (not basing this on an statistical view point). A study made by J. Warner Wallace states at least 322 constants that are needed to have a planet at least like Earth. The probability that all of those constants could align to produce at least one planet is of 1/10322 or 1 in a “1 million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion” (12). Given this fact and seen from a statistical view point, it is impossible. Statisticians define 1/1050 as statistical zero (the point at which the probability is zero percent according to statisticians) (12). That means that if evolution had a chance of being the origin of life, statisticians took it away. The only possible explanation is that something outside our realm, which is able to order every constant in our universe in a logical way, acted to do so (13).

The theory of evolution suggests that everything has evolved from a simple organism into the complex environment that we appreciate today. This could have at least some credibility if a fossil record demonstrating transitions from one specie to another was found. This fossil record is commonly known as the missing link. Charles Darwin expressed his own doubts about his theory several times. Perhaps the most evident statement on his own doubts regarding the theory of evolution is: “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree” (Darwin 5). Even Darwin recognized that his theory has a certain degree of fallibility which he defended by affirming that the Creation was not a possible explanation, but what many believe a separation between Christianity and Evolution is, in fact, a mere illusion.

The fallibility of evolutionism as embraced by Darwinian advocates is that it pretends to be recognized as the origin of life. An astounding amount of evidence proving that wrong has already been found, but evolution itself is not false. Without microevolution, life on earth would have ceased to exist long time ago; as consequent, small genetic adaptations within every specimen’s terrain is more than needed. Microevolution is seen in BMC Medicine Report of April 2013, The Relevance of Microevolution, where Frank Jakobus Ruhli and Maciej Henneberg affirm that “humans still evolve, in terms of anatomical structures and physiological processes as well as disease patterns and prevalence”(115) and that immunities such as lactose tolerance and several other adaptations to human genetics are, undoubtedly, product of microevolution (115).

For any theory, be it Creation or Evolution, faith is required, but the level of faith will increase with every point that the particular theory in discussion cannot prove. Taking the previous enunciate into practice, it is easier and it requires less faith to believe in Creationism than to believe in Evolutionism. This argument does not give any side a solid victory, but it does solidify the position of the Intelligent Design which embraces certain postulates of evolutionism, not as the origin, but as part of the design.

Works Cited

Cray, Dan. “God vs. science.” Time Magazine 168 (2006).WEB.

Darwin, Charles. “On the origin of species by means of natural selection. 1859.” WEB.

Ruhli, Frank Jakobus, and Maciej Henneberg. “New perspectives on evolutionary medicine: the relevance of microevolution for human health and disease.” BMC Medicine 11 (2013): 115. Academic OneFile. Web. 12 Oct. 2013. WEB.

Wallace, Jim. Please Convince Me. Kyle Forman Creative, 2012. WEB. October 9, 2013.

Webster, Merriam. “Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.” (2006). WEB.

Webster, N. O. A. H. “Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.” (1998). WEB.

Wells, Jonathan. “Darwin’s straw God argument.” Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 22.1-2 (2010): 67+. Academic OneFile. Web. 3 Oct. 2013. WEB.

Zacharias, Ravi K., and Norman L. Geisler, eds. Who Made God: And Answers to Over 100 Other Tough Questions of Faith. Zondervan, 2003. WEB.

Close
loading...
%d bloggers like this: