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
Evolution vs. Creation Essay
915 Words4 Pages
Don’t Monkey Around in Class
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). Words of this nature have been questioned for thousands of years—by naturalists, materialists, humanists, etc.—and, in more recent times, have led to court cases, heated arguments, and public debates. The major debate intended to be covered in this piece is that of whether or not evolution should be taught in classrooms. Also, if it is to be taught, should it be taught as fact or theory? It is also intended to present enough evidence to disprove evolution altogether and, as a result, make it much less than a theory, but actually the vain opinions of a man who chose not to accept the truth.…show more content…
Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some form of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence” (qtd. in Gish).
Furthermore, if evolution were true, “there would be countless fossils of transitional forms…., millions of fossils showing various stages in the gradual transition of kinds of organisms into different kinds…., and ‘missing links’” (Parker, et al, 367). “Charles Darwin himself recognized this problem: ‘The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection to the theory” (Parker, et al, 367). Darwin’s doubts, however, do not stop there: ”To suppose that the eye…could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree” (Parker, et al, 381). Also, with respect to transitional forms and the fact that the animal must be alive and fully functional during any change, he says, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which by numerous, successive modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Gregory Parker’s text also