"The test of a first-rate intelligence, is the abillity to hold two opposing ideas in one’s mind at the same time" -F. Scott Fitzgerald
Before the first animal crawled out of the sea onto the land, plants already stood there. When galciers advanced and retreated across the land, plant communities sprung up in their wake, and again, animals folllowed the plants. The burst of human civilization that occurred about 10,000 years ago depended on the domestication of plants to provide a reliable food supply [Audesirk 497].
With the same kind of zeal and unshattering faith that could be found in a Southern Baptist preacher, off the freshman-level biology textbook goes, telling the open minded sponge of a student where life came from, how it survived, and how it changed. Almost as if the writers were there taking notes, they give us a vivid picture of events that are not only doubtable, but highly contraversial and still in theory. Terry and Gerry Audesirk (writers of the biology book quoted above) are both college educated and must be well-respected to have been chosen to write this book for the publishing company. So, why do they take this Christian-like leap of faith when it comes to evolution? Is it scientific to have faith?
Neither of the popularly accepted ideas can be disproven. But, by the same logic that ‘proves’ evolution, both ideas can be proven. Science is considered the ultimate form of logic. How far can this logic go?
This paper will attempt to explain the logic behind the two most popularly accepted ideas of creationism and evolution. Opinions, reasoning, and hard-facts will be presented. Also, the credibility, evidence, historical acceptance, and scientific basis for each account (if any) will be discussed. Both of the ideas in question will be followed by a summary of some pros and cons, and a short analysis.
Modern Creationism, as many scientists know it, is religiously based. In the United States most people would asscosiate Creationism with the Christian church. However, many religions profess an account of Earth’s creation. Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and some Hindus adhere to creationist ideas [Bird 252]. It is a fallacy to state that only Christians believe in a creator. It is simply not accurate to say that the theory of abrupt appearance is primarily advocated by fundamentalists while the theory of evolution is primarily advocated by science [Bird 252]. There are some that believe in an extraterrestrial ‘seeding’ of planet Earth. They are considered Creationists too, although their beliefs are generally agnostic [RBC 4].
Creationism in itself is not scientific. However the creation model is highly scientific. A model is the scientific framework of ideas used to help organize and understand facts in a meaningful way. A "scientific model" must be defended on the basis of evidence and experiments. A "model" is not equivalent to a "theory", as scientifically defined [Eldredge 29]. Creationist ideas can be supported by evidence and that evidence can and has been studied in a laboratory. Therefore, faith is not the only reason so many people choose to believe in the creation.
The belief in our creation has been around for as long as mankind has pondered the origin of the universe. Many scientists, engulfed by contradictory speculations and typical scientific arrogance, dismiss this child-like faith in a Creator as primitive behavior. Relatively, the modern theory of Evolution has existed in the wink of an eye compared to how long Creationism has been around. Historically, Creationism has more credibillity and a much larger following (although that dosen’t necessarilly made it right). Evolution comes and goes as it was proposed in various ancient civilizations in any different forms, but Creationism has been mostly a steady fixture. Regardless of what is taught in modern textbooks, Creationism still has a large following, and is not expected to just dissappear anytime soon, though many religious people often compromise their belief with their school-taught theory of Evolution into a God-ordained evolution mindset (Similar to Aristotle’s Scala Naturae on page 6).
Some "Pros" of Creationism
-It is in harmony with the laws of thermodynamics
-The time of the burst of human ‘civilization’ is in accord with most written accounts of Creation
-It explains the immense complexity and incredible workings of the human body’s design
-It has a well-founded basis in various religions and cultures
-Creationism sheds some light on why human beings are different than the rest of the animals
Some "Cons" of Creationism
-It often requires a blind faith in a creator to explain our existance
-It is unnacceptable as a scientific theory
-Those who do not believe in a god or extraterrestrial beings cannot accept it
-Creationism cannot explain the existance of body parts that serve no function
The second law of thermodynamics states that any change in an isolated system causes the quantity of concentrated, useful energy to decrease [Audesirk 59]. In other words, any thing that looses concentration, tends to loose useful energy. The Big Bang Theory is critical in all challenges to Creationism. According to thermodynamics, the Big Bang could not reorganize into something as complex and full of energy as our planet, especially by accident. If Evolution is true, there must be an extremely powerful force or mechanism at work in the cosmos that can steadily defeat the powerful, ultimate tendency toward "disarrangedness" brought by the 2nd law. If such a massive force or mechanism is in existence, it would seem it should be quite obvious to all scientists [Taylor 8].
Since one cannot examine the proposed mysterious force that created us in a laboratory environment, a Creationist has to rely on reasoning to support his hypothesis of creation. Creationism makes some very valid points, scientific or not. In light of the fact that our cities haven’t been smashed to pieces by meteors is enough to at least make one wonder if there is a god, watching over his creation. The complexity of the human body alone drives many doctors and physicians into the belief that we were designed by somebody. A believer may ask, "If the Creation never happened, how did all of our aptitudes and abillities that keep our cities and nations operational stay diversified?" It can blow one’s mind to think that we have our own individual interests, whether it be painting pictures, construction, teaching, leadership, defense, maintainence, etc, and we do not have a severe lack in any particular major field. There is not an ideal occupation common in mankind’s mind that we would all strive to perform, and there is not an occupation that every man abhors. For example, one may hate to even lend a hand inmaintaining his driveway; while his cousin may love his career in highway construction. The complexity of the planet Earth, if not God’s influence, is what drives so many people to believe that we are not just a cosmic accident. Perhaps this feeling of improbable uniqueness adds to the reasons for people to believe in the Creation.
Many theories abound surrounding the idea of a common ancestor. Evolution is not limited to the idea that man evolved from monkeys as an ancestor, rather it is descriptive of many different forms of gradual change over all species. Biological Evolution discribes the origin of all living organisms through ultimately progressive change from primordial life, through unicellular and multicellular organisms, invertebrate and vertebrate animals to man...[Bird 135]. The millions of diverse living species we find around us in the modern world are all descended from a common ancestor that lived in the remote past. The processes that have brought this diversity about are collectively called evolution [Ayala 1].
Virtually all biologists consider Evolution to be a fact......[E]xceedingly few biologists dispute that Evolution occurs [Audesirk 312]. It is a common stereotype to believe that only agnostic scientists adhere to the theories of Evolution. With the influence of the Humanist movement within the educational systems of the world, more graduates from all levels of intellect are starting to accept Evolutionary ideas. A writer for The Humanist iterates;
I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom......The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism [Dunphy 23, 26].
The Humanist teachings include Evolution. Humanist influence cannot be ignored, as the ideas of Evolution will be taught to all peoples, and is gaining more acceptance every day. A few denominations, from virtually all religious faiths, support Evolution in some form. Some Protestant denominations such as Unitarianism and Neo Orthodoxy accept it, Neo-Modernist Catholics accept it, Reform Jews accept it, and many forms of Religious Humanism support Evolution [Bird 254, paraphrased].
Evolution, in the very sense of the word is highly scientific. It is based on present-day fact and the supporting evidence can be observed and tested on in a laboratory environment (Although some of the supporting evidence can be regarded as somewhat questionable). The fact that all nearly all life on Earth shares a common genetic structure hints that all animals are related. Even the least observant person can tell that most creatures have a lot in common. Common traits and observation of the continuing adaptation of animals to their respective environment is enough to present a strong case for Evolution. Logic is the main reason many people believe in Evolution, in whatever form.
Evolution is regarded as a realtively new theory, though the concept of a less-advanced ancestor has come and gone throughout history. Enuma Elish, the Babylonian account of our origin, states that life evolved from water. Many Greeks and Romans had writings which parallel modern evolutionary thought. Examples are the religious and philisophical writings of Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, the Milesian school, Empedocles, who may justly be called the father of the evolution idea, the Roman Luceritus...[Bird 277]. The ancient Chinese also have a well known account of life evolving from the void, not from abrupt apperance. Plato had the notion that every species had an ideal form, however his student Aristotle believed in Scala Naturae, or Ladder of Nature. The ladder stood, so to speak, upon nonliving matter; climbed rung by rung from fungi and mosses to higher palnts, through primative animals...finally culminated in human beings [Audesirk 304]. Jean Baptiste Lamarck, in 1809, hypothesised that changes in form acquired during the lifetime of n animal could be inherited [Webster’s 898]. When Charles Darwin had On the Origin of Species published, he was considered somewhat radical, though the book was a sell-out. Darwin’s observations included:
1.) in any population the organisms show variations;
2.) the size of the population remains constant althouh more offspring are produced. He concluded that the forces acting on the poulation--competition, disease, climate, etc.--resulted in natural selection. The survivors would breed, thus passing on their inheritable advantageous variations to their offspring [Webster’s 722].
As time passed by, his ideas became accepted and even fought for, as exemplified in the Scopes Monkey Trial of the 1925. Today, we are taught Neo-Darwinism, based on Darwinism, but modified by more recent evidence involving genetic mutations. Darwinism may not have the classical appeal of Creationism, it is gaining momentum fast and is already assumed to be historical fact by most American public school textbooks.
Some "Pros" of Evolution
-It is in accord with adaptation, natural selection, and survival of the fittest
-It has the support of most of the scientific community
-It does not require faith in an unprovable creative force
-It explains some of mankinds animal tendencies (i.e. sex drive, territorialism, etc.)
-The estimated age of Earth is in sync with the extensive amount of time it should take to evolve
Some "Cons" of Evolution
-The "Big Bang" that caused evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics
-It lacks proper fossil evidence for humans
-It requires a faith in non-lethal structural mutation
-"why,...do we not see innumerable transitional forms [Darwin 205]?"
Evolution can be classified into 2 major categories: Microevolution and Macroevolution. Microevolution includes minute changes in a species’ structure. An example of Microevolution may include the domestication of various breeds of dogs. Macroevolution, on the other hand, would include a larger-scale transformation over a series of phases (much like the way Modern Man may have came from the Cro-Magnons, the Cro-Magnons, from the Neanderthals, on back to Ramapithecus). Microevolution can almost be scientific law, if one considers racial development of the human race as an example (i.e. Mongoloids and Negroids developing darker skin, etc.). Many North Texas residents will tell you that fire-ants develop a resistance to certain kinds of poisons over generations, but an extensive scientific study will tell you that the gene that builds resistance probably already existed and nothing mutated or appeared. Macroevolution would entail a much bolder assumption: That former species of animals mutated structurally, to their benefit, and passed the information to their offspring, producing new species. Though micro and macro evolutionary theories go hand in hand in light of Neo- Darwinian thought, microevolution has a lot more reputable evidence than macroevolution [Taylor 41, paraphrased].
Humans have so many animal characteristics, that a scientist can reason (unscientifically, of course) that we evolved from a more primative state. A child’s desire to go outside and participate in some form of physical game-play is an example of this reason. There is good evidence that the tendency to play has evolved as an adaptive behavior in animals capable of learning [Audesirk, 823]. These ‘carry-over’ traits from our proposed ancestral cave-dweller state could explain such emotions as sex drive, territorialism, and competition.
Charles Darwin proposed that over thousands of millions of years, species arise from other, preexisting species through the process of "descent with modification", or evolution [Audesirk, 304]. Carbon-14 dating, and more modern methods such as potassium-argon and uranium-lead, agree that Earth is thousands of millions of years old, which is the time required for the prposed evolutionary changes to take place. The Earth is believed to be about 4,600 million years old, the oldest rocks so far discovered being 3,800 million years old [Webster’s 819]. Thus, the time frame is established for the evolutionary theory.
-CONCLUSION-
To put it simply, I believe in the Creation model entirely. Many of my friends (student, non-student, and instructor) doubt my open-mindedness when I tell them I agree with most basic Creationist views. Being an Evangelical Christian compounds the matter, to where I am called a "religious zealot", "intolerant", and "closing my eyes to the scientific facts". If you the reader may assume a Christian to be closed minded, generally you are right. A Christian has just as much faith in his/her God as a biologist would in theoretical scientific accuracy. I would assure anybody, that my faith in God is so strong, that I am willing to examine any thing proven on the face of this Earth, whether it is contradictory to God’s existance or not. As both a Christian and a seeker of the truth, I find myself a devout believer in Microevolution. However, I find Macroevolution lacking in concrete evidence.