Creation Vs Evolution Essay

Introduction

For a clear understanding of the points raised in this article concerns, I simply must start with a definition of evolution and creation. Hereinafter, the term "evolution" will denote a general theory of organic evolution "from molecule to man." According to this theory, all living things are the result of natural mechanical process of development of a single living source which, in turn, arose from nonliving matter due to the same process. These processes are essential properties of matter itself, and therefore continue to operate today. The theory of creation (creationist theory) argues that all the main types of animals and plants (created kinds) were called to the existence of a pre-existing Being purposeful actions by specific processes that do not work in our time. Changes introduced since then, constrained by the limits established within each of the created kinds.
       Evolutionists stand on that special creation should be excluded from a possible explanation for the origin of species, as this theory cannot be defined as a science. At the same time supporters of evolution there is no doubt that evolution is a pure science, and certainly most of them insist that evolution must be regarded not as a theory but as a fact.

What is Theory? What is Fact?

What criteria must meet the theory to be considered scientific in the conventional sense? George Gaylord Simpson (1964) pointed out: "In the determination of any science says that an assertion that cannot be confirmed by observations, not a statement about something specific, and in the end, not a science." Definition of the word "science" in the Oxford English Dictionary says: "The area of study related to the complex or to prove the truth or with the observed facts, which are classified and more or less systematically in relation to the general laws, including reliable methods for discovering new truths in its application "(emphasis added).
       Thus, in order to refer to the category of scientific theory, it must be confirmed by events or processes which can be observed; theory must predict the outcome of future natural phenomena or laboratory experiments. In addition, generally adds additional constraints: a scientific theory must be able to falsifiability. This means that can be devised such an experiment, the results of which failed to refute the theory itself. Based on these criteria, many evolutionists insist that the creationist theory cannot be regarded as a scientific explanation for the origin of species. Creation had no human observers, it cannot be scientifically verified and the theory of creation is not falsifiable.
       However, the general theory of evolution (the origin of the human molecule) also does not meet all three requirements. Dobzhansky (1958), seeking evidence to support the truth of evolution, actually admits that she does not have criteria for a scientific theory, claiming "a manifestation of the evolution of life on Earth throughout history found no more than an event, do not confirm the observations of eyewitnesses."
       Goldschmidt, although it insists that evolution is a fact that does not require further evidence also admits failure in the search for common criteria of scientific theory. After presenting their views on systemic mutation, or "hopeful monster" (hopeful monster), as the basic mechanism of evolution, Goldshmiit (1952, p.94) states: "This suggestion met with stiff resistance from the majority of geneticists, who argue that the facts found below the species level should be applicable to a higher category. the continuous repetition of unproven allegations, light smoothing inconsistencies, outright hostility to those who are not very amenable to rapid changes in science, fashion, ostensibly, should contribute to scientific proof of the doctrine. Everyone knows that nobody has managed to bring a new species or genus by macromutations. It is also true that no one has yet received no type by selecting micromutations. "Later in the same article (p.97), he writes: "No one has seen the emergence of a new representative of the higher taxonomic categories as a result of micromutants’ selection." Goldschmidt, thus, confirmed that in the context of evolution "from molecule to man" actually observed either primitive changes, or changes in the level below the species.
       Moreover, the architects of modern synthetic theory of evolution because it skillfully constructed that it are quite impossible to refute. The theory is so flexible that unable to explain any fact. That is what complained Olson (1960, s.530) and several participants in the symposium on the issue of Wistar mathematical objections against the neo-Darwinian interpretation of evolution (Moorehead and Kaplan, 1967), including Ernst Mayr, a leading proponent of the theory. Eden (1967, s.530), one of the mathematicians say about the possibility of its fake: "It is simply impossible - to disprove evolution, talking about it in a broad sense. That's what I meant when I said that the theory tautological initially. This theory can explain everything. You can excel in the search for a mechanism that would look quite plausible, or mechanism, consistent with the already open your machines. And you can not particularly zealous - in fact this theory is still impossible to refute. "

Growing Wave of Criticism

In addition to the creation scientists, a growing number of other scientists expressed their doubts about the fact that evolutionary theory can explain anything but trivial changes. Eden (1967, p.109) was so taken aback by the results of a thorough study of the modern theory of evolution from the point of view of the theory of probability, which suggested that "adequate scientific theory of evolution is still waiting for the discovery and development of new - physical, physico-chemical, biological - laws" . Salisbury (1969, 1971) also expressed similar concerns, also based on the theory of relativity.
       In recent years, sharper attacks on the theory of evolution by French scientists. In a review of the situation in France, Litinskii (1961) said: "This year has shown that the controversy gradually escalates. The high point was reached in an article entitled" Darwin Should be burned? ". The article was published in the journal" fl Stsiense vie "(Science and Life), and a huge headline took two pages. The article was written by writer and scholar Michel Imeeo, based on interviews it was with such experts as Andre Tetri, the famous Ecole des professor Hoth Etude and world authority on evolution, Professor Rene Chauvigny and other leading French biologists. in addition, the article was carefully analyzed 600 pages of existing biological data. this work was done with the assistance of Professor Michel Tetri and Keno, biologist global scale. Conclusions Imeeo Michel extremely important: the classical theory of evolution the form in which it now exists, is already a thing of the past. Almost all scientists of France, they declared their position publicly or not, have strong doubts about the possibility of natural selection. "
       E.K.Olson (1960, s.523), one of the speakers at the centenary of Darwin in Chicago, made on this occasion the following message: "There is a group of scientists tend to remain silent about their point of view. They tend to disagree with conventional biological theories, but they write or talk about it a little, as personally not interested, do not see in the confrontation of the theory of evolution of particular importance, or so disagree with each other, that the issue of combating monumental and information theory is largely determined by modern thinking, it seems completely in vain. it is very difficult to determine the composition and size of the silent block, but without a doubt, its magnitude is significant. "
       Fothergill (1961) refers to what he calls "the paucity of evolutionary theory as a whole." Ehrlich and Holm (1962) expressed his doubts in the following way: "In conclusion, considered the third question posed earlier:" What they say about the structures observed in nature? '. It has become fashionable to consider the modern theory of evolution as the only possible explanation for the presence of these structures. We are talking about the only explanation, not the right, developed in our time. It seems so yes it is, that is the theory, which can be jokingly called non-Euclidean theory of evolution, extends far beyond the horizon. Turning theory into dogma does not encourage progress the search for a more satisfactory explanation for existing phenomena. "
Theory of creation is also not proved and it cannot be proved by the methods of experimental science. It cannot be attributed to scientific theories (based on all of the above), because creation is impossible to observe and how the theory cannot be refuted. Creation, as well as evolution is the assumption postulate that can serve as a model explaining the phenomena related to the origin of species. In this sense, the theory of creation of the world is not more religious and less scientific than the theory of evolution. Frankly, many quite knowledgeable scholars prefer the theory of creation of the world to explain the origin of species.
       I suspect that such a dogmatic attitude to evolution happened in our time not because of the available data, and because of the philosophical prejudices characteristic of our time. Watson (1929), for example, refers to the theory of evolution as "a theory of universal common not because of what it can be proved logically sequential data, but because its only alternative - divine creation - it is simply impossible to believe."

Consider Two Models

Exclusion of the theory of creation, as a possible explanation of the origin of species, from the field of science is impermissible and undesirable from a philosophical and scientific point of view. Under the current system, wherever students are taught that evolution is an established fact, they are forced to accept the theory of secular humanism; instead they draw their own conclusions from the objectively existing data in this field.
       The situation can be corrected in the following way: a) introducing the creation and evolution of a model; b) making assumptions on the basis of each of the models; c) comparing the data from existing scientific predictions based on each of the models. Thus students will be able to choose the personal point of view, based on objective data. This is exactly what I try to do in the rest of his article. I limited research chronicles fossils.
       At that time, as in other fields of science can still argue which of these two theories is more preferable Chronicle fossils is such a source of scientific information, which can give only one conclusion, whether living organisms arose as a result of evolution, or were created. This situation is well explained Le Gros Clark (1955): "The fact that evolution actually took place, it can be proved only with the discovery of fossils of the most representative samples of transitional forms, whose existence is postulated on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In other words, the crucial evidence evolution must provide paleontologists, whose direct work - to investigate fossils. "Gavin de Beer (1964) echoed him: "The final word in favor of evolution - for paleontologists."
       In his revolutionary work "The Origin of Species," Darwin (1859) says: "The number of intermediate and transitional forms between existing and extinct species must be incredibly large." And whether you are a supporter of classical Darwinism or modern synthetic theory can not get away from this conclusion. Due to the fact that the evolution of the large number of predicted transition and intermediate forms, according to this theory, we need to find a huge number of these fossil forms, despite the fact that the fossils represented a very small part of the plants and animals that existed on earth.
       Chronicle fossils represented in our time is so diverse that it is not enough to refer to is simply impossible. George (1960, p.1) stated that "now it makes no sense to apologize for poverty chronicles fossils. In some cases, the amount of data fossils is so great that they do not have time to explore, and the rate of discovery of new fossils above the speed of processing." There is no doubt that the one hundred and fifty years of thorough search was to be found a sufficient number of undoubted transitional forms, if the assumptions of evolution is correct, of course.
       On the other hand, the theory of creation predicts that transitional forms between different categories of vertical and almost created kinds should not be. The presence of transitional forms categorically cannot be excluded for two reasons: a) within each type of plants and animals seen tremendous diversity; b) similar ways of being and livelihoods require similar structure or functions. Thus, in the chronicle of fossils should be systematic and widespread gaps between the higher categories or created kinds. Data on fossils should provide a clear choice between the two models. These models can be represented as follows: Let us now compare the facts available in the chronicle of fossils, with the assumptions of each of the two models.

These two models allow us to make the following assumptions about the chronicles of fossils:

Conclusion
Not being a creationist, Kerkat (1960) wrote a great book, convicting weaknesses and errors of the traditional set of evidence in favor of evolution. At the end of the book he says: "There is a theory that all forms of life on earth descended from a single source, which at one time originated from non-living matter. This theory can be called" general theory of evolution. "The information in its proof, not sufficient to regard it as something more serious than a working hypothesis." Between a hypothesis and a proven scientific fact, of course, there is a huge difference. If human philosophies allow him to accept evolution as a working hypothesis, it must accept this theory only at the level of the hypothesis, and not force everyone else to take it as an established fact.
       If you move away from the philosophical prejudices of materialism or theism, and to consider the creation and evolution as a model to predict the nature of historical evidence, the theory of creation as well trustworthy as the evolution of the (in my opinion, deserves even greater confidence). And I repeat: none of the two models is more religious and less scientific.
      No less convinced evolutionist Thomas H. Huxley (as quoted by L. Huxley, 1903) admitted that "creation in the usual sense is quite clear. I is not difficult to believe that at some previous period this universe did not exist, and then for 6 days (or overnight if you like) originated in accordance with the will and desire of some pre-existent her essence. Thus, the so-called evidence against theism a priori and the possibility of divine acts of creation seems to me devoid of basis in reality. "
      The majority of the scientific community and the leaders of the education system in disguise themselves scientism to get everyone to their own outlook on life. Authoritarianism medieval church gave way to authoritarianism rational materialism. Constitutional rights and free research suffocate under the sultry cover dogmatism. It is time for a change.

Works Cited

Dobzhansky, T. "Evolution in Action". Science, # 127, 1958, pp. 1091-1098.
Dobzhansky, T. "The biological view of the world." Science, # 125, 1972, p. 49.
Romer, ES "Vertebrate Paleontology". Third Ed., University Chicago Press, Chicago, 1966.
Watson, D.M.S. "Adaptability". Nature, # 124, 1929, s.233.
Ehrlich, PR, Hill, RW "Structures and populations." Science, # 137, 1962, p. 655.