Creation vs. Evolution Compare and Constrast Essay

This essay has a total of 10816 words and 55 pages.

Creation vs. Evolution

0. Introduction and table of contents
The following is an organized presentation on the creation vs. evolution controversy. This
is the fourth revision of a set of essays which I had originally submitted in note 840 of
the now-archived Christian_V5 conference, with first revisions submitted in note 24 of the
Christian_V6 conference and note 35 of the Biology conference, and second and third
revisions submitted in note 25 and 640 of the now-archived Christian_V7 conference as of
this writing, respectively. (These are employee-interest forums at my place of
employment.)

It is my hope that this will provide a logical and coherent framework for defending the
fact of special creation and the abrupt appearance of life on earth against the popular
dogma of evolution.



"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the
hope that you have." (1 Pet 3:15)


Table of contents:

0. This introduction and table of contents
1. An abstract of the presentations to follow
2. A defense of Creation
3. "Chance" is not a cause
4. Life from non-life: Spontaneous Biogenesis?
5. Random genetic mutations
6. Natural Selection
7. Genetics and Micro-evolution
8. What about Taxonomy?
9. Transitional forms
10. The fossil record of life forms
11. Fossilization
12. Stratified layers of rock containing fossils
13. Uniformitarianism vs. Catastrophism
14. Radioisotope dating methods
15. Dating methods that suggest a young earth
16. The "Ape-men"
17. Science
18. Faith
19. Some objections to the design/chance arguments
20. Extra-terrestrial intelligence
21. Resource list
22. Primary source references
As a preface to this document, I want to point out that it is a shame that we have to
continue to refute the same arguments that evolutionists keep bringing up over and over
again in their attempts to argue against the fact of creation, which fact has been well
established since the day the earth was created ex nihilo several thousand years ago.
Nevertheless, the neo-Darwinian dogma of the spontaneous auto-organization of random
chemicals into complex biopolymers, by chance forming complex self-replicating automatic
machines that then evolve into more and more complex self-replicating automatic machines
through genetic transcriptional errors and the injection of random noise, filtered into
highly coded information and structures by predators, the climate, and other mindless
agents working together to produce an ecosystem capable of sustaining and improving all
these countless life forms for billions of years has managed to permeate, over the last
150 years, the thinking in major scientific circles, the media, and secular education,
even penetrating some professing Christian institutions.

It is also a shame that the masses have bought all this based on some circular reasoning
about fossils, where fossils tend to be found buried, similarities between various life
forms, the presence of certain decay products in rocks, and other inherently speculative
arguments about the past, based on phenomena that exist in the present.


If I hope to accomplish anything, it will be to simply encourage critical thinking. One
must get past the arguments ad populum (that its popularity counts for something), ad
hominem (that if you attack the person making the argument, this counts for something),
and especially ad baculum (that there are people who have the clout to decree it as true),
to ask the key questions and challenge the unsubstantiated assumptions and thinking of
those who would hold to the evolution position. Today there are an increasing number of
anti-creationist authors who are producing books and periodicals that make this relatively
brief presentation insufficient to deal with all the points in dispute. Those defending
creation today who don't have the time to devote their life's study to gaining expertise
in all fields of inquiry must principally be prepared to think critically, logically, and
challenge unsubstantiated assumptions made by these people. They must also keep a level
head in the face of some vicious attacks and diatribes that will be directed against them,
as is advised in the scriptures (1 Peter 3:15-16).


By way of definitions, I want to point out that when I speak of "evolution," I am
referring to the popular contemporary use of the word, which in a nutshell is the belief
that all life forms are related by ancestry, and that the first life form occurred
spontaneously, all due to completely natural processes.


When I speak of "creation," I am referring to the inherently obvious fact that the origin
of all life forms can be attributed to a creator who purposefully created them with
planning and intent, and the documented fact that this occurred over the course of a
week's time several thousand years ago.


This document is not a scientific thesis, but an apologetic intended to be submitted and
defended by me in an interactive, online electronic forum. I claim no copyright on this
document, and grant its use to the public domain. I have not written it with a view
towards receiving any sort of financial or other personal gain, and I request that others
utilizing this document do likewise. Those copying and disseminating this document shall
assume full responsibility for defending it. I do not agree to defend this document in any
forum that I did not submit it, due to the practical limitations of my own time. The
original source of this document is located at http://www.ultranet.com/wiebe/e.htm


The originality of content of this document ranges from mere paraphrases of material from
a wide assortment of authors to entirely original material that I have not seen expressed
by any other author. The mix is probably about 50/50.


I should point out that I do not consider myself an authority on the leading edge of
modern creationism, although it may seem so to the uninitiated. Those wishing to be on the
forefront of knowledge must look beyond this paper. I am not a scientist, but an engineer
by education and profession. Even so, it is my conviction that no substantial scientific
training or experience is required to confront evolutionism and defend recent creation.


I wish to thank my critics, especially those anti-creationists whom I have encountered
along the way, for helping to expose deficiencies in my presentation, which has
contributed greatly to the continuing refinement of this document. I also wish to thank
those who have encouraged me by telling me that this presentation has made a difference.


Garth D. Wiebe
February, 1997

1. An abstract of the presentations to follow
This is an abstract of the presentations on the creation/evolution issue that follow:
As design demonstrates the existence and capability of a designer, the inherent design in
life, the earth and the universe implies the existence and capability of its Designer. The
best source of information regarding a design can be had by inquiring of the designer. A
designer provides better and more authoritative information about his design than the
design does about itself. In the case of life on earth, the Designer has unmistakenly
identified Himself and revealed specific information about some of the circumstances
surrounding creation. (See 2. A defense of Creation)


Chance does not cause anything. In fact, within the laws of probabilities and statistics
we should not expect order and selection to be the result of "random" processes. Order and
selection are the result of directed, non-random causes. (See 3. "Chance" is not a cause)


Living matter does not and could not have been spontaneously generated from non-living
matter. The laws of biochemistry, probability and statistics, and basic information theory
are against it. It has never been demonstrated in the laboratory. (See 4. Life from
non-life: Spontaneous Biogenesis? )


Effects caused by random genetic mutations (that is, those that are phenotypically
expressed) are almost always bad. Once in a while they produce some interesting benign
abnormalities. But no one has ever shown them to be beneficial, so as to result in complex
and sophisticated designs. (See 5. Random genetic mutations)


The "survival of the fittest" clause is a tautology and success does not imply complexity.
Natural selection shouldn't be expected to result in functionally different or more
complex designs. Putting natural selection together with random genetic mutations doesn't
help matters. (See 6. Natural Selection)


Genetics disproves evolution. Animals vary based on coded genetic information that is
already there. This is the principle of micro-evolution, which has been verified by the
scientific method. (See 7. Genetics and Micro-evolution)


Similarity does not imply ancestry. The animals don't have ancestral dates attached to
them. Evolutionary taxonomy is an effort based purely upon speculation and prior
acceptance of the evolution model. (See 8. What about Taxonomy?)


Any discussion of "transitional forms" is based purely upon speculation and conjecture,
and is therefore moot and useless. (See 9. Transitional forms)


The fossil record of life forms does not support evolution. The animals now fossilized
were as complex back then as they are today. They seem to have appeared abruptly. The
fossil record is consistent with creation according to separate kinds. "Hopeful monster"
theories are without foundation and fallacious. (See 10. The fossil record of life forms)


The fossils themselves don't have dates attached to them. Furthermore, the process of
fossilization should not be expected to occur gradually, but better fits within the model
of a geological catastrophe. (See 11. Fossilization)


Burial order does not imply ancestry. The various stratified layers of rock do not have
dates attached to them. The ordering of fossils within them are best modeled as a
consequence of a geological catastrophe. The ordering is also too inconsistent to fit
within the evolutionary model. (See 12. Stratified layers of rock containing fossils)


There is no basis for assuming uniform geological processes and ruling out catastrophic
events. There is no basis for even assuming the uniform and consistent application of
natural law throughout all time. Uniformitarianism is an ideology without a foundation.
(See 13. Uniformitarianism vs. Catastrophism)


Current methods for dating rocks and organic material using radioisotopes involve many
assumptions about initial conditions and the environment that are not known. The dating
results are inconsistent. Objects known to be young have been dated using these methods
with erroneous results. These dating methods therefore cannot be considered reliable. And
even if they were reliable, age does not in principle imply ancestry. (See 14.
Radioisotope dating methods)


Many dating methods exist which would similarly suggest that the earth is thousands, not
billions, of years old. While these methods also have their own set of unverifiable
assumptions, they invalidate, or falsify, the few dating methods that would seem to
suggest an old age for the earth. (See 15. Dating methods that suggest a young earth)


There is no substantial evidence for the existence of ape-men, or any hypothetical
sub-human ancestor of man. As far as we know, there is, and has always been a single
species that was totally human since the beginning. There also exist and have existed
various species of apes, some extinct, and some still living. Perhaps there might also
have existed some degenerate or diseased descendants of modern man. (See 16. The
"Ape-men")


Science is limited to the study of natural phenomena and is not sufficient to evaluate the
issue of either creation or evolution. Nevertheless, the fact of creation is obvious. In
conclusion, it may be stated that the overwhelming evidence points to creation and rules
out evolution. (See 17. Science)


Faith is "confident belief, trust," "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we
do not see." To believe evolution over creation one must ignore the overwhelming evidence
available for creation. It is better to place our faith in the Creator, rather than the
creation. (See 18. Faith)


Rebuttals are provided to common objections to the design argument and chance argument.
(See 19. Some objections to the design/chance arguments )


A quantitative comparison is made between a hypothetical message from outer space and the
complexity/coding of a living structure, demonstrating that if one accepts purpose,
planning, and intent as the cause for one, then one is compelled to accept purpose,
planning, and intent for the other. (See 20. Extra-terrestrial intelligence)


A resource list of books, pamphlets, tracts, videos, magazines, and research organizations
is provided for further reference. (See 21. Resource list )


A list of primary source documents cited by the secondary sources is given for footnoted
points in essays 14., 15., and 16. (See 22. Primary source references )



2. A defense of Creation
In the computer industry, we know that any computer system functions according to a design
and contains highly coded information. Because of the complexity of this design and the
highly coded information, we attribute the origin of design in such a machine to an
intelligent designer and coder. In fact, the more sophisticated the machine, the more
planning and forethought we attribute to its development and the more intelligence and
ability we attribute to the designer. Computers themselves can assist as tools in the
process of designing other computers, but ultimately the origin of the design can be
attributed to careful planning and intent apart from the machine and tools themselves or
any process of nature.

No one would suppose that something as complex and sophisticated as a computer happened
together by chance or by natural processes. This idea would be considered an absurd
proposition. So it is with life forms on earth.


Life on earth is far more complex than computer equipment. In fact, the collective
know-how of the greatest minds in all of human history have failed to produce a machine of
the sophistication and success of even the simplest replicating life forms. The inherent
design in the life forms on earth and the coded information contained therein must be
attributed to a designer of vastly superior intelligence and ability than man.


It is set forth here as something obvious that design proves a designer and coded
information proves a coder. We simply conclude from consistent life-experiences that when
we stumble across something that has design, this demonstrates the existence of a
designer, and likewise that coded information demonstrates the existence of a coder. From
consistent experience we also know that a creator is not the creation, but that a creator
exists outside his creation. The evidence in the world around us, by itself, is reason for
us to deduce the existence of a Creator, who exists outside of his creation. (See Rom
1:19-20, Heb 1:3)


I am an engineer by trade. If I want to find out how a particular piece of computer
equipment was designed, I can go about it in a couple of different ways. One thing I can
do is examine the piece of equipment, taking it apart, measuring it, etc., to try to come
to a conclusion about what makes it tick. The other thing I can do is go find the designer
and either talk to him or consult the blueprints and other documentation associated with
the device. Of the two methods, the source of the most authoritative information is to
consult the designer and his documentation.


From the principle that the design in life forms today demonstrate the existence of their
creator, the surest way to resolve the creation/evolution controversy is to see if that
creator has revealed specific information about the circumstances concerning the
implementation of the design.


Written testimony from the Creator includes things like the following (paraphrased): "I am
the only God who ever existed or ever will. There is no other god besides me." (see Isa
43:10); "I created the universe by myself. There was no one else with me when I did it."
(see Isa 44:24); "God created the heavens and the earth in six days"; "God created each
animal after its own kind." "God created the first man Adam from the dust of the ground,
and the first woman Eve from the first man's rib" (see Gen 1-2).


Now, anyone can claim to be the creator, and anyone can fabricate information as if it was
from the creator. One of the important things we must look for is evidence that a piece of
spoken or written testimony really did come from the creator.


As Creator, God has validated his testimony by causing things to happen in his creation
which are specifically intended for us to take note of his existence and his specific
revelation to us. We call these phenomena "miraculous" because they are supernatural
phenomena.


Examples of God's supernatural intervention are such as: Parting the Red Sea, allowing a
virgin to conceive, saying that he will flood the whole earth, then doing it; predicting
events in the future with 100% accuracy; incarnating himself as a man, allowing his body
to be killed and buried, then raising himself up from the dead after three days. Multiple
witnesses have seen these things happen and heard the Creator speak and have written them
down as reliable testimony which we can now refer back to. Such events are not considered
natural phenomena, and so by definition fall outside the realm of scientific inquiry.


Keep in mind that in accumulating information, we rely largely on indirect information
about what people have observed. Even a scientist does this, and an evolutionist does too.
An evolutionist cites most of his information from written or spoken testimony by people
who have observed things, and a minority of information from personal experience. Just
like a creationist.


An adequate defense of the authenticity and reliability of the ancient historical records
that make up what we now call the bible is beyond the scope of this document, so will have
to be assumed as a premise. Although the bible is not required to defend the fact of
creation and the existence of the Creator, it is required to defend the historical time
frame and circumstances in which creation happened and the identity and personality of the
Creator.


We conclude that life on earth came about by a special creative act of God. A whole set of
life forms, including man, was created at once. This happened on the order of several
thousand years ago, and the process took less than a week. We don't fully understand all
the "hows" and the "whys" in every detail, but we pursue further knowledge given those
details that we are sure of, accepting the authority of what the Creator has to say over
the more limited information we obtain by examining His creation. The Creator is more
knowledgeable, and none of us was there to observe life come about on earth.


Hopefully this not only provides a defense for "creation," but also explains why
"creationists" are always appealing to the Creator (God) and testimony that comes from Him
(the Bible). Because if you really want to know about how something was designed, it's
best to first consult the person who designed it.


References: 44

3. "Chance" is not a cause
"Chance" does not cause anything.
If I flip a coin, you might say that there is a 50% chance that it will come up heads and
a 50% chance that it will come up tails. But this is only an observation, not the cause
for it to come up heads or tails.


Say I flip a coin and it comes up heads. What was the cause for it to come up heads?
Consider: We understand the laws of motion, statics and dynamics, friction, etc. If we
could analyze each aspect of the position of the coin in time and space, and take into
account all the forces that act upon the coin, we would conclude that the coin is doing
just what it is supposed to do under the circumstances. In fact, if I could set up all the
same conditions and flip the coin again in exactly the same way, it would by necessity
come up heads each time. It would take a miracle for it not to.


The fact of the matter is that I am too clumsy and lack the skill and ability to cause a
coin that I flip into the air to come down in any particular way. So we conclude that
there isn't enough intelligence and skill behind my coin flips and consequently we expect
a random distribution of results. We conclude that it is my lack of skill and ability that
will result in disorder and chaos.


Probabilities and statistics are mathematical observations of things. For things that seem
to occur in a random way, we attempt to predict an outcome using a mathematical model. If
the results don't fit the model, then we must conclude that either we have done our math
wrong or the thing just isn't behaving in a random way. In the case of a sequence of coin
flips, you expect chaos and disorder in the long-term, producing a random sequence of
heads and tails.


Suppose I announce that I am going to repeatedly flip a coin and hope to come up with a
sequence of all heads. So I proceed to flip the coin, and it comes up heads. You say,
"OK." I flip it a second time, and it comes up heads again. You say, "OK." I flip it
again, and it comes up heads again. You say "Hmmm, OK." Say I flip it again, and it comes
up heads a fourth time. You say "Hmmm." Say I flip it again, and it comes up heads a fifth
time. You say "Wait a minute, what's going on here?" I flip it again, and it comes up
heads a sixth time. You say "Stop, this isn't fair." I say, "Why?" You say, "It isn't
random. You're doing something to make that coin come up heads each time." I flip it
again, and it comes up heads a seventh time. I say, "Look, millions of people have flipped
coins throughout history. This was bound to happen sooner or later." I flip it again, and
it comes up heads an eighth time. You say, "Come on, what are you doing?" I flip it again,
and it comes up heads a ninth time. I say, "Nothing. Really! I'm just flipping this coin
and it keeps coming up heads by chance." I flip it again, and it comes up heads a tenth
time. You say, "You're a liar. What do you take me for, some sort of fool?"


Now, if it is true that a million people have tossed coins throughout history then maybe
you should have waited until at least 20 throws (since 2^20 is a million), before even
considering crying "foul." But most people, in fact, won't. Why did the observer in the
above example not wait that long? Because after 10 tries he concluded that he could call
the coin-thrower a liar based on the non-random results. Statistically, he would have only
1 chance in a thousand of being wrong!


Given the immensely lower probability of things happening in the evolutionary scheme of
things, one should conclude (to be consistent) that evolution didn't happen. That person
would have a 1 in 1000000000000...(fill in some enormous number of zeros)...0 chance of
being wrong, solely on the basis of sheer probabilities. In any case, this person is not
to be taken for some sort of fool.


References: 36

4. Life from non-life: Spontaneous Biogenesis?
In considering creation/evolution, we must keep in mind that "chance" does not cause
anything. A person defending evolution often excludes an intelligent creator as an
explanation for the cause of things happening, and in the void substitutes "chance." But
"chance" can be one of the evolutionist's worst enemies.

First of all, what the evolutionist's "chance" creates (figuratively speaking), the
evolutionist's "chance" ought to destroy, in the long run. Chance is equated with
randomness, and randomness is equated with disorder and chaos. Life on earth is an example
of incredible order and complexity. What, then, was the cause for this order and
complexity?


The classic evolutionary concept of spontaneous biogenesis involves living matter coming
about from non-living material by chance. For example, let us suppose that in a
hypothetical primordial atmosphere, ammonia, water, methane and energy can combine to form
amino acids. That this first step can happen is indisputable and has been verified through
laboratory experiment (such as in the famous Miller/Urey experiment of 1953). However, to
proceed beyond this point to living proteins by chance would involve a major miracle of
such great proportion that one would think it easier to just accept the obvious (that it
didn't happen "by chance").


Amino acids are molecules that have a three-dimensional geometry. Any particular molecule
can exist in either of two mirror-image structures that we call left-handed and
right-handed (in layman's terms). Living matter consists only of left-handed amino acids.
Right-handed amino acids are not useful to living organisms, and are in fact often lethal.
The random formation of amino acids produces an equal proportion of left-handed and
right-handed molecules. This has been confirmed by laboratory experiment and is
essentially what Miller produced in his famous test-tube experiment (putting methane,
ammonia, and water together and zapping them with electrical discharges.)


Life as we know it cannot consist of a mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino
acids. So it would take an enormous sequence of coin-flips (in which the coin came up
heads each time) to come up with a protein that could constitute living matter. Yet there
is more.


Proteins consist of amino acids linked together with only peptide bonds. Amino acids can
also combine with non-peptide bonds just as easily. In fact, origin-of-life experiments in
the laboratory yield only about 50% peptide bonds. So, it would take another enormous
sequence of coin flips to come up with a protein that could constitute living matter. Yet
there is more.


Any particular protein contains amino acids that are linked together in a particular
sequence geometrically. At a minimum, that sequence must be correct for any given protein
at all the active sites which comprise about half of the amino acids in the protein.
Proteins contain anywhere from 50 to as many as 1750 amino acids, depending on the
particular protein.


There are about 20 common amino acids that comprise the basic building blocks of life. Any
particular protein must have all the correct left-handed amino acids joined with only
peptide bonds with the correct amino acids at all the active sites. Yet there is more.


Let us consider the sequence of chemical reactions necessary for us (or rather, "nobody")
to produce one particular protein contained in living matter: One amino acid can combine
with another amino acid in a condensation reaction to produce a peptide (two amino acids
linked with a peptide bond) and water. One peptide can combine with another peptide in a
condensation reaction to produce a polypeptide and water. And so goes the sequence of
chemical reactions that supposedly can produce one protein essential to living organisms
that can reproduce. Let's stop again, and consider what has happened thus far.


Each condensation reaction described above is reversible. That is, it can occur in either
the forward or the reverse direction. That means that "randomness" would be consistent
with things breaking down as they are being put together. But to top it off, the popular
scenario involves things happening in a primordial sea, implying an excess of water. Since
a condensation reaction produces water, and there is already excess water in the presence
of the chemical reaction, there is much more opportunity for any complex molecule to break
down into the more simple ones. Thus, a polypeptide should combine with excess water to
produce monopeptides, and a monopeptide should combine with excess water to produce amino
acids. The initial reagents of the supposed equations that are given as a pathway to life
are favored, in the presence of excess water. Yet there is more.


Amino acids can react and form bonds with other chemical compounds, and not just other
amino acids. Assuming that there is more in our "primordial sea" than just amino acids and
water, we will encounter scenarios where these other reactions will take place instead of
the ones we want to produce a protein.


An oxygen-rich atmosphere, such as we have today, is one example of what would ruin the
chemical reactions proposed for the origin of life. It is for this reason that we have the
Oparin Hypothesis, which states that the atmosphere must have originally been reducing,
rather than oxidizing, containing very little free oxygen and an abundance of hydrogen and
gases like methane and ammonia. Circular reasoning is employed to defend the Oparin
Hypothesis.


The above only considers the formation of a single protein, not to mention that there are
many different kinds of proteins necessary to form the simplest single-cell organisms. And
we haven't even begun to address the formation of the various nucleic acids and other
chemical constituents of life, which must be simultaneously present (by "chance").
Finally, all these must occur in in a specific arrangement to form a complex structure
that would make for a reproducing organism (by "chance").


Many evolutionists are now proposing that not proteins, but DNA or RNA occurred first.
Consider that this is moot, since the same amount of information must be coded into the
nucleic acid to synthesize a protein as is represented by design and structure of the
protein itself. This makes such scenarios to be at least as unlikely.


The spontaneous organization of nucleic acids into DNA or RNA suffers in concept from the
same problems that the spontaneous organization of amino acids suffers from. All nucleic
acids must be right-handed, form particular bonds, in a particular arrangement, in
chemical reactions that proceed in a particular direction and aren't spoiled by other
chemical reactions.


Some evolutionists are proposing that life originated not in a primordial sea but on some
clay template. Again, this is moot, since the clay template must by necessity be as
complex as what is formed on the template. This makes such scenarios to be at least as
unlikely. Furthermore, the evolution of informational "defects" in the crystalline
structures of clays has never been observed or demonstrated in theory. Shifting the medium
for evolution from biological molecules to polyaluminum silicates solves nothing.


The classic examples given for the formation of some of the basic building blocks of life
by chance therefore lacks substance on a theoretical basis both according to the
principles of chemistry, the principles of probability and statistics, and the principles
of basic information theory.


Without proper theoretical or experimental basis, a scientific hypothesis cannot be
supported. The formation of living matter from non-living matter by chance remains within
the realm of speculation without foundation.


References: 1, 2, 7, 20

5. Random genetic mutations
Most of us understand that the information that represents the data and instructions for a
computer program has a particular code, designed specifically by the software engineer.
What would we expect to happen if, once the program was loaded and running, we zapped the
binary image from which it was executing with a random change of some data bit?

In most cases, the program would probably crash or seriously fail to accomplish anything
useful. In some cases, the program might continue on oblivious to the change. In a very
few cases, the program might exhibit some interesting aberrant behavior. But in no cases
would we expect to get a more complex program or a program of a totally different kind.


So it is with random genetic mutations. Life forms are more complex than any computer
program that we have ever designed. Random genetic mutations are bad. When they have an
observable effect (i.e., are phenotypically expressed), they are almost always to the
detriment of the organism, killing it, maiming it, making it sterile, etc. Sometimes,
interesting aberrations are the result. But never has anyone demonstrated that a mutation
has benefitted an organism in such as way as to create an innovative function or a more
complex or different kind of life form.


"Chance" does not cause anything. Things that are caused by processes that we observe to
be "random" we associate with increasing disorder, not more complex design.


Random genetic mutations are claimed to be a key factor by which simple life forms evolve
into more complex ones. A scientific hypothesis is tested through laboratory
experiment/observation and theoretical analysis. Regarding random genetic mutations being
a plausible factor for evolution to occur, we may conclude the following:



In a theoretical sense, the claim fails based on sheer probabilities and statistics.
Randomness is associated with disorder, and disorder is not associated with selection.

In an empirical sense, the claim fails, since no one has demonstrated that random genetic
mutations have created innovative functionality. They have never been observed to create
more complex or functionally different kinds of life forms.

When considering the idea of "beneficial mutations," keep in mind that mere reproductive
Continues for 28 more pages >>




  • Evolution
    Evolution The origins of mankind is an extremely controversial issue within today’s society. Scientists have a host of different theories pertaining to man’s inhabitance of earth. Many disagreements arise between scientists who have different beliefs pertaining to where and how mankind arose. One such argument is the conflict involving the theory of evolution versus the theory of creation. After extensive scientific research, it is apparent that the theory of evolution is correct. Evolution is t
  • Jane Ayre analysis
    Jane Ayre analysis English 360 Final Draft/ Paper 1 February 25, 1999 Jane Eyre - Analysis of Nature Charlotte Bronte makes use of nature imagery throughout "Jane Eyre," and comments on both the human relationship with the outdoors and human nature. The following are examples from the novel that exhibit the importance of nature during that time period. Several natural themes run through the novel, one of which is the image of a stormy sea. After Jane saves Rochester\'s life, she gives us the fol
  • Black women authors
    black women authors Master Harold... And The Boys Athol Fugard\'s drama, "Master Harold" . . . And The Boys, was written during a time of great conflict in South Africa, where he was raised. Fugard was torn between his mother, who was "Afrikaaner," (1291) and his father, who was "of English decent" (1291). These differing influences caused Fugard to use the discussions between Sam and Hally to demonstrate the religious, racial, and political tensions of his lifetime in South Africa. The discussi
  • Creation Science as a Pseudoscience
    Creation Science as a Pseudoscience In every civilization throughout history, man has searched for the explanation to his existence. In ancient society’s people created origin myths. Every civilization had a unique myth. Some myths involved gods and others involved nature. Sometime around one thousand B.C. the longest standing creation myth was popularized. This creation myth is still in practice today, almost three thousand years later. The myth I am referring to is the Genesis recollection in
  • Life is But A Choice
    Life is But A Choice Beginning with the time of birth until the time of death, people have to make choices everyday on how to achieve the goals in their lives. One can imagine life as a long winding road with millions of other roads branching off in many directions. The only problem is that life is too short to explore every single road. In addition, the essence of time will not allow anyone to go back to a road that was passed. Everyone must choose his/her own roads through life regardless of w
  • Creationism VS Evolution
    Creationism VS Evolution Evolution is not only improbable but clearly impossible. Extensive evidence against evolution is uncovered with every major scientific discovery. Every evolutionist "fact" can easily be rebuked by creationists. Twelve supposed hominoids have been discovered and presented as supporting evidence to evolution. While in all actuality nine of the twelve supposed hominids are actually extinct species of ape. While the remaining three are completely developed humans. Neandertha
  • Cloning
    cloning Cloning: Recently, we have all seen the controversy over whether or not we should attempt to clone. If you haven\'t heard: A group of scientists in Scotland announced the birth of a sheep cloned from embryonic cells, presaging Dolly. Dolly\'s was the birth heard round the world. The first mammal ever cloned from a single adult cell, she was living proof that scientists had solved one of the most challenging problems of cell biology. Her creation raised a troubling question: Can humans, t
  • Charolotte bronte
    charolotte bronte Charlotte Bronte\'s Jane Eyre Nature in Jane Eyre Charlotte Bronte makes use of nature imagery throughout "Jane Eyre" and comments on both the human relationship with the outdoors and human nature. The Oxford Reference Dictionary defines "nature" as "1. the phenomena of the physical world as a whole . . . 2. a thing\'s essential qualities; a person\'s or animal\'s innate character . . . 4. vital force, functions, or needs." We will see how "Jane Eyre" comments on all of these.
  • Christianity3
    Christianity3 Since the beginning of human history and in recent history there have been many explanations for events that seem out of human control. In recent civilized history, religious and scientific views have often bumped with one another. Religious ideas are usually presented first and then enough scientific evidence accumulates to challenge religious beliefs. These findings of science are met with amazement and most are considered a heresy. Since the middle ages until the 18th century, r
  • Creation v Evolution An Educational View
    Creation v Evolution An Educational View Creation v. Evolution: An Educational View Many words have been written about the origins of things. Numerous ancient people believed that several powerful gods were responsible for creating human beings (Warburton 12). Another theory is parallel evolution, humans evolving simultaneously in several parts of the world (Allman, 54). The metaphysical assumptions and moral implications demonstrated in aspects of evolution theory have been a source of conflict
  • Creation vs darwinism
    creation vs darwinism Creationism is the theory that man, the earth, and the rest of the universe was originally created rather than randomly exploding from nothingness into chance existence. Of all the generations thus far to inhabit the Earth, we have the least excuse for not recognizing the quiet presence of The Scientific Mathematician who set everything into motion around us. We should be in awe, not presumptuous and skeptical. About 3,000 years ago King David of Israel wrote (Psalm 8:3-4)
  • Creationism
    creationism Creationism is the belief that the origin of the universe, of life, and of the different kinds of plants and animals on earth are due to the intervention of God. The other belief is the belief of evolution developed by Charles Darwin that contradicts creationism. Evolution states that all species including humans descended from other species. It also states that each species derived from an earlier less complex one. Evolution is determined by natural selection, which means that an or
  • Edwards v Aguiallard
    Edwards v Aguiallard INTRODUCTION Edwards v Aguillard was a 1987 Supreme Court case centering around the constitutionality of a Louisiana statue requiring that creation science be taught along side of evolution in the public schools. WHY CASE SO IMPORTANT Evolution remains so controversial primarily because it is part of a larger debate over nature and the meaning of life. The study of how life began almost inevitably raises questions of why: Why did life begin? Why are humans rational? Why is t
  • Effects of Media on People
    Effects of Media on People I. Introduction Media nowadays is considered a window for learning and is also considered to be our main window to the world. Media has evolved from simple text in papers, to voices in radios, to voices with pictures in television and movies, to the very broad and information packed Internet. But as we all know, media has changed and evolved since then. Media then was primarily used to deliver news across the town and to beef up the people with the information they nee
  • Evolution is schools
    Evolution is schools Position on Evolution In 1925, schools had a very standard and general curriculum. Much of this curriculum was based on Christian beliefs and morals. No one dreamed of challenging these values. Especially in the school classroom, where budding minds strived for new knowledge, and any new ideas could possibly spark secular beliefs totally contradictory to what was taught in Christian households. When John Thomas Scopes, a science teacher in a rural Tennessee school, began to
  • Evolution3
    evolution3 Evolution vs. Creation Evolution versus Creationism is a hot topic that is in constant debate among scientists and Christians. Held in high regard to the world of science, Evolution, is the theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors. On the other hand, faith of millions of Christians hold the truth that, the act of GOD by which the whole entire
  • Paleontology
    Paleontology Career in Paleontology Who am I? I feel I am a good listener and a good observer (Bingham 1999). My Structure of Intellect (SOI) reveals that I am a good at visualizing and identifying work in all types (Meeker 1999). The Career Information System (CIS) said that I should be good at notation and would be good with any type of Science work that has to do with taking notes, and also says that I would make a good Geologist. I would like to become a Paleontologist. Thesis Statement I am
  • Philosophy
    philosophy Berkeley\'s Theory of Immaterialism As man progressed through the various stages of evolution, it is assumed that at a certain point he began to ponder the world around him. Of course, these first attempts fell short of being scholarly, probably consisting of a few grunts and snorts at best. As time passed on, though, these ideas persisted and were eventually tackled by the more intellectual, so-called philosophers. Thus, excavation of "the external world" began. As the authoritarinis
  • Philosophy
    philosophy Berkeley\'s Theory of Immaterialism As man progressed through the various stages of evolution, it is assumed that at a certain point he began to ponder the world around him. Of course, these first attempts fell short of being scholarly, probably consisting of a few grunts and snorts at best. As time passed on, though, these ideas persisted and were eventually tackled by the more intellectual, so-called philosophers. Thus, excavation of "the external world" began. As the authoritarinis
  • Proof of evolution
    proof of evolution ˙Proof of Evolution Evolution is a fairly simple idea. A broad definition of it is “Species change over time.” Evolutionary theory is supported by a huge body of evidence, including the fossil record and observation of organisms alive today. That is the reason it is embraced by most mainstream scientists. Theologists, whose arguments are based totally on faith, base their theories on fiction not proven fact. Faith, being belief that isn\'t based on evidence, is the principal v
  • Religion and evolution
    religion and evolution Religion & Evolution 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 existe
  • School choice
    school choice School Choice: Public Education vs. Home School When Americans think of education, they almost automatically think of public education. Through the years, it is slowly changing. Many parents today are deciding to home-school their children. Although most people think that a public education is better, most statistics and facts tend to show that home schooling is beneficial in more ways. It is estimated that parents are now teaching over two million children at home, rather than in
  • Science and god
    science and god With each new development in science comes conflict, mostly from those who dont believe that science follows the teachings of their religion or allies with their beliefs in an almighty power or God. Looking back in history at some of the great names in human scientific achievement, such as Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin, we see that with each genius discovery came some outcry from religious groups. Nikolaus Copernicus was one of the first pioneers of science. Until 1540 science
  • Craetion vs evolution
    craetion 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 abou
  • Creation1
    Creation1 Creation II Mrs. Brew 13 May 1996 Intelligent Design of the Universe The search for knowledge about the origin of humanity is as old as its inhabitants. Since the early 1800\'s mankind has narrowed the debate to creation by a Supreme Being and the theory of evolution. Ever since then, science has been at odds against religion. Now it appears that science is returning to religion. Scientists are finding proof that the universe was created by a Supreme Being. The word evolution refers to
  • THE EVOLUTION VS CREATIONISM CONFLICT
    THE EVOLUTION VS CREATIONISM CONFLICT (This is an inquiry that I wrote for a high school composition class - use it for reference, but I wouldn\'t recommend or appreciate it being submitted into a proffesor.) The merits of the arguments between the theory of evolution and the belief in creationism is a topic that has bestirred an interest in me for several years. I think that most people have an opinion on the topic or are trying to form one. An example of this is the Christian fish that emphasi
  • The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit
    The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit The last line of the Lord’s prayer is, “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” It is a key line in the Christian religion. The intention of this is reminding one of where we came from and to thank Jesus Christ for giving his life to remove humanitie’s sin. There are many key points in the Bible that tells us how we came to be, reminding us everyday to be thankful for what God has done for us. The Bible is one thing that held in high estee
  • The Problem with Evolutionists Problems
    The Problem with Evolutionists Problems The Problem with Evolutionists’ Problems “The Creationist battle cry can be stated thus: Public ignorance is Creationist bliss.” This is just one of the many attacks made against Creationist in Richard Young’s article, “Why Creation ‘Science’ Must Be Kept Out of the Classroom.” Throughout the article he uses many hasty generalizations about creationist theories. The first hasty generalizations Young makes are untrue statements about the Bible. He then uses
  • Creation science
    Creation science Creation Science Creationism is a religious metaphysical theory about the origin of the universe. It is not a scientific theory. Technically, creationism is not necessarily connected to any particular religion. It simply requires a belief in a Creator. Millions of Christians and non-Christians believe there is a Creator of the universe and that scientific theories such as the the theory of evolution do not conflict with belief in a Creator. However, fundamentalist Christians suc
  • Creation science
    Creation science Creation Science Creationism is a religious metaphysical theory about the origin of the universe. It is not a scientific theory. Technically, creationism is not necessarily connected to any particular religion. It simply requires a belief in a Creator. Millions of Christians and non-Christians believe there is a Creator of the universe and that scientific theories such as the the theory of evolution do not conflict with belief in a Creator. However, fundamentalist Christians suc
  • Creation vs evolution
    Creation vs evolution What Are They Angry About? by Tyler Booman If you\'re planning a vacation later this year, better make sure it\'s not in Kansas. According to recent reports, the state\'s overall IQ has just taken a nosedive. What has caused this "giant step back into the nineteenth century" as one person called it? Quite simply, the State Board of Education voted to de-emphasize evolution in state testing and to give local school boards the option of deciding whether or not evolution would
  • Creationism vs Evolution
    Creationism vs Evolution Creationism and Evolution For a long time school administrators, teachers, parents and even students have argued for and against the teaching of either creation and/or evolution. Evolution has been taught in many public schools for generations because of the scientific methods and support it has as a scientific theory of how we as humans came to be. Many religions hold different views of how humanity as we know it was created and these people believe that students should
  • Evolution creationism
    evolution creationism Looking For A Term Paper? Try This Site Too! Creationism vs. Evolution 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
  • Evolution vs Creation
    Evolution vs Creation The Great Debate: Should Creation Be Taught in School? Evolution versus creation has been a debate lasting decades upon decades in the United States and around the world. The mock trial held during class, however, was not to prove one view as right and the other wrong. Rather, the focus of the trial, from the view of the prosecution, was simply to prove that creation should not be taught as a science in schools. The prosecution and the defense were each allowed four witness
  • Evolution vs Creation
    Evolution vs Creation The Great Debate: Should Creation Be Taught in School? Evolution versus creation has been a debate lasting decades upon decades in the United States and around the world. The mock trial held during class, however, was not to prove one view as right and the other wrong. Rather, the focus of the trial, from the view of the prosecution, was simply to prove that creation should not be taught as a science in schools. The prosecution and the defense were each allowed four witness
  • Origin of life
    origin of life To help us with our study of origins, we will use two main sources: the Bible – as God’s direct revelation of life, and science – a way to interpret the Bible using scientific knowledge. In his book Biology Through the Eyes of Faith, R.T. Wright (1989) states: “It is an important conclusion of faith that both science and Scripture are sources of knowledge of God’s works and that, when properly understood, should not lead to conflicts.” I agree with this statement, believing that G
  • Origins
    Origins Adam Dill Origins Creationism vs. Evolution, the argument disputed by more scientists, more paleontologists and more everyday people than probably any other argument since the dawn of man. Who is right? Do the theories and evidence of evolutionists have the right answers or do the faith and facts of creationists hold the answers? What is creationism? “Creationism” is the idea that all forms of life, and particularly humans, were independently created by a willful act on the part of God o
  • Origins1
    Origins1 Adam Dill Origins Creationism vs. Evolution, the argument disputed by more scientists, more paleontologists and more everyday people than probably any other argument since the dawn of man. Who is right? Do the theories and evidence of evolutionists have the right answers or do the faith and facts of creationists hold the answers? What is creationism? “Creationism” is the idea that all forms of life, and particularly humans, were independently created by a willful act on the part of God
  • THE EVOLUTION VS CREATIONISM CONFLICT
    THE EVOLUTION VS CREATIONISM CONFLICT (This is an inquiry that I wrote for a high school composition class - use it for reference, but I wouldn\'t recommend or appreciate it being submitted into a proffesor.) The merits of the arguments between the theory of evolution and the belief in creationism is a topic that has bestirred an interest in me for several years. I think that most people have an opinion on the topic or are trying to form one. An example of this is the Christian fish that emphasi
  • Modern Interpretation of The First Amendment
    Modern Interpretation of The First Amendment The Modern Interpretation of the First Amendment By: Nicole Castle Mr. Edwards Civics Spring 2001 The first Amendment of the United States Constitution says; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1] Our fore fathers f
  • Evolution of the horse
    evolution of the horse ˙For many people, the horse family remains the classic example of evolution. As more and more horse fossils have been found, some ideas about horse evolution have changed, but the horse family remains a good example of evolution. In fact, we now have enough fossils of enough species in enough genera to examine details of evolutionary change. Evolution does not occur in a straight line toward a goal, like a ladder; rather, evolution is like a branching bush, with no predet
  • Creationism in Public Schools
    Creationism in Public Schools Teaching Creationism in Schools The question as to whether or not creationism should be taught in public schools is a very emotional and complex question. It can be looked at from several different angles, its validity being one of them. Despite the lack of evidence to support the fundamentalist idea of creationism, that in itself is not enough to warrant its exclusion from the curriculum of public schools in the United States. The question is far more involved and
  • School Choice Public Education vs Home School
    School Choice Public Education vs Home School When American’s think of education, they almost automatically think of public education. Through the years it is slowly changing. Many parents’ today are deciding to home school their children. Although most people think that a public education is better, most statistics and facts tend to show that home schooling is beneficial in more ways. It is estimated that parents are now teaching over two million children at home, rather than in public or even
  • Teaching Creationism in Schools
    Teaching Creationism in Schools Teaching Creationism in Schools Introduction The issue of teaching creationism in the public schools has long been debated. Over the years, many different arguments have been made. First, creationists tried to have the teaching of evolution outlawed. This issue went to the Supreme Court in 1968, where in Epperson v. Arkansas the high court ruled against banning the teaching of evolution. Soon after this decision, creationists began to call for \'equal time\', or
  • Jane Erye
    Jane Erye Jane Eyre - Analysis of Nature Charlotte Bronte triumphs in many arenas with her masterpiece "Jane Eyre". She develops a beautiful setting and endearing characters, that sometimes overshadows some of the more subtle aspects of her novel. One very important element that is sometimes overlooked is the use of nature imagery and comments on the human relationship with the outdoors and human nature. The Oxford Reference Dictionary defines "nature" as "1. the phenomena of the physical world
  • Jane Erye
    Jane Erye Jane Eyre - Analysis of Nature Charlotte Bronte triumphs in many arenas with her masterpiece "Jane Eyre". She develops a beautiful setting and endearing characters, that sometimes overshadows some of the more subtle aspects of her novel. One very important element that is sometimes overlooked is the use of nature imagery and comments on the human relationship with the outdoors and human nature. The Oxford Reference Dictionary defines "nature" as "1. the phenomena of the physical world
  • Scope
    Scope For several days in July of 1925, a high school math teacher in Dayton, Tennessee became the most reported-on man in America. He was not an actor, an athlete, or a politician. He was on trial for teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. The trial later came to be known as “Scopes Trial,” after John Scopes, the defendant. But this was not a trial to see what punishment he would receive. This trial pitted Protestant fundamentalists against the American Civil Liberties Union. In the end, altho
  • Scopes Trial
    Scopes Trial For several days in July of 1925, a high school math teacher in Dayton, Tennessee became the most reported-on man in America. He was not an actor, an athlete, or a politician. He was on trial for teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. The trial later came to be known as “Scopes Trial,” after John Scopes, the defendant. But this was not a trial to see what punishment he would receive. This trial pitted Protestant fundamentalists against the American Civil Liberties Union. In the end
  • The First Ammendment Dealing with the seperation o
    The First Ammendment Dealing with the seperation of Church and State Is it unconstitutional for local, state or federal governments to favor one religion over another? Government can show favoritism toward religion by displaying religious symbols in public places at taxpayer expense, by sponsoring events like Christmas concerts, caroling, by supporting the teaching of religious ideas, or even by supporting the teaching of creationism in public schools. It appears the United States government ha
  • Creation v Evolution An Educational View
    Creation v Evolution An Educational View Creation v. Evolution: An Educational View Many words have been written about the origins of things. Numerous ancient people believed that several powerful gods were responsible for creating human beings (Warburton 12). Another theory is parallel evolution, humans evolving simultaneously in several parts of the world (Allman, 54). The metaphysical assumptions and moral implications demonstrated in aspects of evolution theory have been a source of conflic