Creationalism Vs Evolution Essays - Pseudoscience, Denialism

Creationalism Vs Evolution Essays - Pseudoscience, Denialism Creationalism Vs Evolution Creationism vs. Evolution The majority of people in this world believe that a spiritual being created earth. In fact, most religions and cultures believe the universe was created by a 'creative hand,' either a sky god or some other physical object (Encarta 1). Think of it, as a trial to see which will win, creation or evolution. It has been the most argued debate in all of history, but creationism is more logical than evolution. To first understand what creation is about, we have to know what creation is. The Bible defines creation as the action by God that brought the universe and all its contents into being. The Bible also states, God created great whales and every living creature that moveth, and so God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them (Genesis 1:21, 27). To Doug LaPointe, the author of Top Evidences against the Theory of Evolution, there are nine articles of evidence pointing weaknesses in evolution, or strong points in creation. The first evidence is that there are no links between the fossil record and present times; therefore, there is nothing to show that evolution actually happened. Second, that natural selection cannot advance an organism to a higher order. The third being that although evolutionists believe life just came about, matter resulted from nothing, and humans evolved from animals, all of these are against scientific and nat ural understandings. Fourth, even though evolutionists present them as if they were, the hominids' bones and skull records, for example the famous Lucy, the finds are unrevealing and inconsistent. The fifth and sixth articles of evidence are the nine out of 12 hominids that evolutionists use are really extinct apes, and the other three are modern human beings and not part ape. This would conclude that all of the twelve 'hominids' are something other than hominids and are not half-human, half-ape. Evidence seven and eight show that natural selection has practical, social, and logical inconsistencies. The last evidence says that the rock strata finds are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution, which would show yet more proof in the Bible (LaPointe 1-2). Michael Behe, author of the recent bestseller Darwin's Black Box, states, I was amazed that people believe in evolution when there was this clear argument against it (Behe 3). At first Darwinism was taught at schools, but there were so many flaws that these ideas were turned down, and a different form of evolution was taught. The new form was then taught along with a type of scientific creation (Encarta 2). This shows that schools feel that Darwin was wrong, and Darwin is evolution's top scholar. In order to disprove a way of thinking we must first know what we are trying to disprove. The definition of evolution is the complex process by which living organisms originated on earth and have been diversified and modified through sustained changes in form and function (Encarta 2). Thomas Robert Malthus first stated that the human population was growing too fast for the food supply. This, he said, Is regulated by disease, famine, and war (Infopedia 1). Darwin applied this to animals and plants and came up with the theory of evolution by natural selection. His theory stated that the children of a species intensely compete for survival. Those young that survive to produce the next generation tend to be embodying favorable natural variations and these variations are passed on by heredity. Therefore, each generation will improve adaptively over the preceding generations, and this gradual and continuos process is the source of the evolution of the species (Infopedia 1-2). The notion th at populations of organisms can be transformed over generations into descendant population of different kinds has been suggested repeatedly since the early-recorded history of ideas, but if you trace all the species back to their origin, you would get one object. Now the real part of this argument is right here. How did that one object come into being? It couldn't have happened by mere chance. It did not always exist so there had to be nothing before it. If there was nothing before it, how was it created?