Creationism vs. Evolution

Essay by petmydogHigh School, 10th gradeA, May 2006

download word file, 7 pages 3.7

Downloaded 99 times

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.

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.