Creationism Vs. Evolution Argument

Evolution vs Creationism A main point in the Creationism vs Evolution argument is about the Bible and science, religion and science. Between the Bible and science, most scientists who believe in evolution are atheist. In order for atheism to be true, there must be an explanation for how the universe and life came into existence. “Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.” (“American Atheists”)
Scientists who believe in evolution will
not admit that their purpose is to lay the foundation for atheism by providing an alternative explanation of the origin of life, but according to the Bible, that is why evolution exists.
The Bible, which is God’s word, says, “Only fools say in their hearts, There is no God.
They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; not one of them does good” (Psalms 14:1).
“For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God” (Romans 1:20).
According to the Bible, the one who denies the existence of God is a fool, but why do so many people, including Christians, accept evolutionist’s beliefs. According to the Bible, they are all foolish people. Foolishness does not mean lack of intelligence. Most scientists who believe in evolution are intelligent people. Folly refers to the inability to apply knowledge appropriately. “Fear of the Lord is the foundation of true knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline” (Proverbs
1:7).
Charles Darwin was a British naturalist who proposed the theory of biological evolution by natural selection (“Khan Academy”). The basic idea of biological evolution is that populations and species of organisms change over time (“Khan Academy”). Darwin defined evolution as “descent with modification,” the idea that species change over time, give rise to new species, and share a common ancestor (“Khan Academy”) “Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology” (Than). The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin’s book On the Origin of species in 1859 (Than)
In the book, On the Origin of species Darwin explains how he formed his theory of natural selection, “It has often been loosely said that all our races of dogs have been produced by the crossing of a few aboriginal; but by crossing we can only get forms in some degree intermediate between their parents; and if we account for our several domestic races by this process, we must admit the former existence of the most extreme forms, as the Italian greyhound, bloodhound, bull-dog, etc., in the wild state ” (Darwin, 37)., “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (Darwin, 194)., “When the same organ is found in several members of the same class, especially if in members having very different habits of life, we may generally attribute its presence to inheritance from a common ancestor” (Darwin, 199).
For, counterargument “Philip Johnson of Berkeley Law wrote Darwin on Trial, a book that points out that “None of the ‘proofs’ for natural selection provides any persuasive reason for believing that natural selection can produce new species, new organs, or other major changes, or even minor changes that are permanent” (Geisler, 142)., “In other words, the reason that dogs don’t become as big as elephants, much less change into elephants, is not that we just haven’t been breeding them long enough. Dogs do not have the genetic capacity for that degree of change, and they stop getting bigger when the genetic limit is reached” (Johnson, 38)., “One particularly eminent scientist of the mid-twentieth century who concluded that it had absolutely broken down was the German-American geneticist, Professor Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California at Berkeley. Goldschmidt issued a famous challenge to the neo-Darwinists, listing a series of complex structures from mammalian hair to hemoglobin that he thought could not have been produced by the accumulation and selection of small mutations” (Johnson, 58). “If common ancestors and chains of linking intermediates once existed, fossil studies should be able, at least in some cases, to identify them. If it is possible for a single ancestral species to change by natural processes into such different forms as a shark, a frog, a snake, a penguin, and a monkey, then laboratory science should be able to discover the mechanism of change.” (Johnson, 89).,
Also, in the fact Charles Darwin was a sincere christian who had prepared for pastoral ministry in college (Biologos). But later on, the deaths of his father in 1848 and his 10-year-old daughter Annie three days after Easter in 1851(Biologos). It makes him abandoned the Christian faith.
Darwin's purpose was not to disprove God's existence, but it became one of the final outcomes of evolution.
Evolutionists scoff at creationists and claim that says intelligent design are not worth doing non-scientific, scientific reviews. According to their assertion, in order for something to be regarded as 'science', it must be observed and verifiable. In other words, it must be "realistic."
Creation is by definition supernatural. God and the supernatural can not be observed or verified; therefore, creation and intelligent design can not be regarded as science. Of course, evolution can not be observed and verified, but it seems to be an issue for evolutionists. As a result, evolutionists filter evolutionary preconceptions and assumptions, with previously accepted theories without considering any other explanation for all
data.
Intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. For those who do not know about Natural Selection, Natural Selection is a “blind process” which means that only the fittest creatures survive. Also, the origin of the universe and life can not be proved or observed by experiment. Both creation and evolution are systems based on each belief about origin. Neither can be verified, because we can not return to billions of years to observe the origin of the universe and its life. The logic used by evolutionary scientists to reject creationism equally reveals that their explanation of origin is unscientific. Evolution is, at least, less scientific than creationism in its origins. Evolutionists argue that evolution is the only experimentable explanation of origin, and therefore evolution is the only theory of 'science'. But this is a silly fool itself. Scientists advocating evolution are true to origin but do not honestly examine the merits of the theory and deny it, which, when they see it, is in accord with the illogical and narrowly defined 'science' It is not.
If creationism is true, then there is a Creator. Evolution is a factor that promotes atheism. Evolution gives the atheist a basis for explaining the existence of life aside from the Creator God. Evolution says that God does not need to be involved in the universe. If you designed something there has to designer. Evolution is a theory that creates 'atheistic religion'. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We must either believe in the word of the omnipotent God, or believe in a foolish "scientific" explanation that is illogical and prejudicial.