Show MoreCreationists have locked themselves into a country-wide battle against science for the minds of our youth and control of the intelligentsia. Why are they fighting? Over the last decade, the Theory of Evolution has reared its head with a vengeance, and creationists fear that it erodes the moral integrity of our society while promising to deliver us into a dark age. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the truth is, in fact, quite the opposite. The Theory of Evolution is supported by vast amounts of empirical evidence, and the dismissal of such can only cause harm to our society in a world where innovation and progress beget survival. There are so many arguments against evolution that I could not list even a sizeable fraction of…show more content…
These generational changes may vary in their complexity, and most fall within the range of microevolutionary changes, which are relatively small changes that do not result in the immergence of a new species. Macroevolution, in contrast, refers to changes which can result in a new species that is incapable of sexually reproducing with members of the original species. It is important to note that, contrary to many Creationist arguments, evolution is not a linear process that gradually moves toward a state of perfection or superiority, there are no “greater” or “lesser” evolved species, and evolution does not moves backwards. A species will only evolve to survive within their niche of a particular environment. This entire process is described and predicted by the Theory of Evolution. It is important to make another pivotal clarification at this point. What do scientists mean when they call something a “theory”? The difference in meaning between an everyday theory and a scientific one is quite large. The former refers to a hunch or speculation that may be based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence. The latter, which we are concerned with, refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. (National Academy of Sciences, and Institute of Medicine 11) Like the Theory of Gravity, the Heliocentric Theory, and Cell Theory, the Theory of Evolution is unlikely to be significantly altered by any
Creation Vs Evolution
Where have we come from? How did we get here? Questions of these sorts seat at the base of every human’s mind. In a bid to providing answers to them, two camps emerged and have thenceforth been at loggerheads with each other; they are the creationist camp and the evolutionist camp. The creationist on one hand posits that some supernatural forces are responsible for the universe’s origin whereas, the evolutionist supplies a theoretic explanation for the origin of things in natural terms.
Creationism, strictly speaking, is a religious concept which says that God created the universe because it is within his powers and knowledge to do so. Evolutionism refers to the change that occurs over time through which species become modified and diverge to produce multiple descendant species. However, while creationism gives a singular explanans for how things came to be, evolutionism supplies varied theories. These include cosmic evolutionism in the popular ‘big-bang’, organic evolutionism in the widespread natural selection of Charles Darwin (1859), and chemical/planetary evolutionism in the coming together of the three primordial elements –hydrogen, helium and lithium.
Since it is naturally unacceptable to have two systems of explaining one and the same phenomenon, we had always being attempting to ‘find a common ground between the rival theories or merge them into one or jettison one for the other’. So it was that this (finding a common ground or merging them into one or jettisoning one for the other) has been the task of scientists and theologians for centuries. It has become common-placed that some scientists and theologians now come together to form one body in a bid to giving a synergized explanation of the origins of things. Evolutionary creationism or theistic evolutionism is that such body, and it opines that God created the universe through a natural process.
Despite all of these, the conclusions of creationism, evolutionism and evolutionary creationism are still matters that need confirmation. Just as no one can prove that God created the universe out of nothing, so too no one can show that the big bang and natural selection were facts that happened sometimes ago in the past. It thus seems futile that we continue to find which of the two camps is correct. They both explain the universe’s origin and they both hold some verisimilitude; I say we accept them both.