Creationism vs Evolutionism 2 - Miscellaneous - http://maxpages.com/thelemicmagick/Creationism_vs_Evolutionism

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.

Yet, you ask that if this is the case, and humanity has
evolved from primates in such a short period of time, why can we not
see the evolutionary process taking place today? The answer is a
simple one. I know of no human which has lived for two-million years.
Which in and of itself is not a very valid argument for this case, but
nevertheless a substantial point at any rate. However, if we were to
be more objective about the process of human evolution we would see
that in the life span of the earth we are still a relatively young
race. Dinosaurs, for example, inhabited this planet for over
one-hundred-thirty-five million years. In relative view of this
information, we can see that humans have only been in existence for
approximately 1/60th of the time that dinosaurs existed. With this in
mind, we can further grasp that the process of evolution is a very
slow process which requires an almost incomprehensible scale of time
to our limited lifespans.

While I realize that many points, and beliefs were not touched
upon in this essay I did attempt to cover as much ground as possible
in as short a space as possible. It is painfully clear to me that an
existence based upon blind faith is no longer an acceptable tradition.
The ideas of creationism are far outweighed by the Laws and Theories
of evolution. While there are understandably a great many men who have
spent a vast amount of time in scribing the Bible, we must realize
that they were indeed men, not Gods and the bible is, actually, only a
book. To believe the contents of that book completely, one must have
unwavering faith in the validity of its concepts and the precepts upon
which its religion is based. One of the striking and perhaps most
intriguing points of interest that I have stumbled upon is the lack of
education of creationism in schools. If the point was so very valid
and without skeptical doubt, then why is it not being taught to our
children? I understand the idea of separation between church and
state, and the fact that the school is very much a part of state. Yet
it seems to me that if the idea is a basic building block in today's
society then why not teach this to the young? Why is it that we only
teach evolution if it is so unbelievable? The simple fact of the
matter is that we have evidence and supporting cases in science today
which makes the very idea of creationism redundant to teach, as well
as a contradicting view of evolution which could possibly confuse
those of a younger age. There are many religions in the world upon
which the bible are based, and the ones which espouse creationism are
but a few. Being a western culture we tend to forget this.

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.

1"Creation," Microsoftr Encartar 96 Encyclopedia. c 1993-1995
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. c Funk & Wagnalls
Corporation. All rights reserved.

2"Creation," Microsoftr Encartar 96 Encyclopedia. c 1993-1995
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. c Funk & Wagnalls
Corporation. All rights reserved.

3"Cosmology," Microsoftr Encartar 96 Encyclopedia. c 1993-1995
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. c Funk & Wagnalls
Corporation. All rights reserved.

4"Evolution," Microsoftr Encartar 96 Encyclopedia. c 1993-1995
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. c Funk & Wagnalls
Corporation. All rights reserved.

email: omegaBOOM@aol.com

Visitors: 03344

Page Updated Sat Jan 30, 1999 7:24pm EST