Naturalistic Evolution vs. Creation Science

Is there really anything behind the book of Genesis in the Bible? Is there anything behind all the stories of creation science? How can you be sure? You cannot. The theories involved with creation science are backed up only by faith in myths that can be easily diminished through scientific fact. There is not enough information to support creation science, and the theory of naturalistic evolution is undoubtedly correct. The evolution theory is a theory evident in seven branches of biology: species distribution, comparative anatomy, taxonomy, embryology, cell biology, and paleontology. Species distribution was apparent after the separation of Pangaea when organisms of the same type would fulfill separate niches in the separate continents they had been relocated in. The different niches all required different organs and traits, thus causing their shapes and sizes to change according to the use or disuse of the characteristic they previously had. (Asimov 138+) Comparative anatomy is the study of evolutionary relationships based on common traits and structural differences. Taxonomy is an artificial system which shows species relationships in formally ranked order. Cell biology, the fourth branch relevant to the evolution theory, shows multiple similarities between organisms. Embryology has shown evolutionists that two remarkably organisms dissimilar as adults maybe remarkably similar as embryos, which could be a method of bridging gaps between species. (Gale Encyclopedia of Science 1+) Keep in mind that simply because something has been given defining characteristics or has had a book written on the subject does not make it exist. Owen Gingerich, a Historian-Astronomer at Harvard University once said, "Genesis is not a book of science. It is accidental if some things agree in detail," (Asimov 138). Genesis is implausible because it states that on the third day God created grass, herb, and fruit trees, but it was not until the fourth day that he created light. On the fifth day, God created swimming animals and flying animals. On the sixth day God created land dwellers, including humans. (Oxford 1+) Should this have been true, it would have placed humans living on earth at the exact same time as dinosaurs, and other animals that we know we were not in co-existence with due to the fossil record. The fossil record actually tells us that the first signs of even vaguely human life were more than four and a half billion years after the Earth 's birth (Asimov 138+). Based on this information, scientists believe Genesis to be fictitious. However, creation scientists argue that at the time God created the world, a day could be equivalent to what are now thousands or millions of years. This, too, is impossible because it is common knowledge that a plant cannot reproduce without pollination, or survive without sunlight to use for photosynthesis. A more convincing timeline is evident in the evolution theory. The origin of life, as according to evolution was in the Precambrian era, three billion years ago. Algae and fungi-like plants were the first to arise from the Earth 's soil. Six hundred million years ago, in the Cambrian era, the extensive fossil record began. It consisted mostly of trilobites and brachiopods, which accounted for eighty to ninety percent of all fossils from the era. This is why the Cambrian era has come to be called the "Age of Invertebrates." (Hotton 130+) The first primitive land plants were birthed in the Silurian era, 425 million years ago. Then, in the Permian era, which was 280 million years ago, vertebrates made their advance, and reptilian species dominated the land. For another 95 million years, reptiles were still most abundant, until the dawn of the Tertiary era, when mammals replace the reptiles as most plentiful species. Then, finally, in the Quaternary era, the Australopithecus, an early form of man, made his appearance. Climatic fluctuations changed the form of the Earth to the form that we currently know. (Hotton 130+) A third fault found within the book of Genesis is the proclamation that the sun revolves around the Earth (Oxford 1+). Virtually all have come to know that this is untrue. Had God truly dictated Genesis to its authors without fault, this declaration would never have been placed within the pages of the book. Furthermore, naturalistic evolution has been proven to a point where it is so far trusted that it is taught on a national scale in most public schools. However, in most schools, students and teachers are not even allowed to preach the theory of creation science. Often times, students are taught the theories of Charles Darwin. Darwin 's theory had two primary principles. The first was that all forms of life descended from a common ancestor over great lengths of time through gradual mutations. The second was that gradual modification, including new organisms, comes from natural selection. Natural selection is the ability to adapt, or the inability to adapt, which determines the survival of organisms. (Haught 7+) The amazing amount of information that it would take to disprove evolution is exceptionally extensive, and so it is rather pointless for creation scientists to even argue. Should fossil placement have been the result of Noah 's flood, many things would have had to have been found in a different state. There would have had to have been signs of human life in concurrence with extinct reptilian and plant life, which there obviously is not. Instead, there are multiple examples of how the bridges between separate kinds of organisms could have been formed within the fossil record. The fossil record was formed when fossils were placed together based on their age, which was known due to carbon dating and the study of fossil placement in sedimentary rock. Although there are some intermediate species missing, and the fossil record is incomplete, paleontology 's findings are a great support to the evolution theory. (Gale Encyclopedia of Science 2) Take for example the bridge between the Eysthenopteron and the Icthyostera. The Eysthenopteron is a fish, but shares numerous characteristics with the amphibian Icthyostera. Another amphibian, the Seymouria, exhibits both amphibian and reptilian qualities. The Archaeopteryx possesses both reptilian and avian characteristics. A fourth duo, the Probelesedon and the Massetognathus have both reptilian and mammal characteristics. Progainognathus, another creature with both reptilian and mammal characteristics has both mammalian and reptilian jaw structure. There are three separate species that bridge the gap between terrestrial and aquatic species. The cow-like Mesonychid led to the speciation of Pakicetus inachus, Ambulocetus natans, and Rodhocetus kasrani, all of which contain both terrestrial and aquatic characteristics. The Abulocetus actually contains combinations of the two that were previously thought to have been unattainable. (Vuletic 2) As for the descent of humankind, it is mostly thought that we have evolved from primates. This is because of the agreement in bone structure of primates and humans, and also because the brain of man, when compared to that of an orangutan is the same in every chief fissure and fold. However, this is not to say that the brain of the orangutan and the human function in exactly the same manner, because that would imply that they would have the same intelligence levels. Not only is the brain of the human comparable to that of a primate, recent information shows that we as humans share 98.4% of our genes with chimpanzees. This does not mean we are identical to the chimp though, seeing as it only takes a one percent difference in genetics to make an astounding alteration in an organism. (Haught 19+) It is also believed that we evolved from primates because of the fact that humans can communicate diseases and receive diseases from this lower life form, proving that their tissues, blood, and immune systems are very similar to ours. (Darwin 396) Another point to consider consists of "God 's" ability to inspire infinitely. The writers of Genesis are said to have been inspired by God, and Genesis was supposedly written without error. If our so-called creator had this power, why are there cynics in the first place? Creation science is obscure dogmatism, and nothing more. It is formed solely on the basis that cult/religious leaders starting in the early stages of time needed to keep their followers. Evolution theories are far more credible, and confirmed, and it is my belief that our life should be accepted for what it truly is before our demise, as to better fulfill our purpose. Although there are still details to be further researched, these pieces of evidence have been enough to convince most scientists that the theory of evolution is not only a theory, but a fact (Gale Encyclopedia of Science 1+). Works Cited
Asimov, Isaac. Science and Religion. St. Paul: Greenhaven Press, 1988.
Biblical writers. The New English Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971.
Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species and the Descent of Man. New York: Random House, 1872.
"Evolution." Gale Encyclopedia of Science. 2004. Discovering Collection. Online. 12 Oct. 2004.
"Evolution, Evidence of." Gale Encyclopedia of Science. 2004. Discovering Collection. Online. 12 Oct. 2004.
Haught, John F. Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution. Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2001.
Hotton III, Nicholas. Evidence of Evolution. New York: American Heritage, 1968. Vuletic, Mark I. In Defense of Evolution. [Online] 5 Oct. 2004.

Cited: Asimov, Isaac. Science and Religion. St. Paul: Greenhaven Press, 1988. Biblical writers. The New English Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971. Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species and the Descent of Man. New York: Random House, 1872. "Evolution." Gale Encyclopedia of Science. 2004. Discovering Collection. Online. 12 Oct. 2004. "Evolution, Evidence of." Gale Encyclopedia of Science. 2004. Discovering Collection. Online. 12 Oct. 2004. Haught, John F. Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution. Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2001. Hotton III, Nicholas. Evidence of Evolution. New York: American Heritage, 1968. Vuletic, Mark I. In Defense of Evolution. [Online] 5 Oct. 2004.