Evolution Vs. Creation

One of the most controversial topics of today is the question of our existence and how it came to be. Until recently, many thought that a supreme being had created the universe. Within the last few hundred years, however, overwhelming scientific evidence that demonstrates our existence is that of adapted species through evolutionary processes has challenged the suggestion of creationism. Evolutionists claim that their ideas contradict the teachings of the popular creation stories like that of the book of Genesis in the Holy Bible. Because of the scientific evidence to support evolution, and the lack thereof for the idea of creationism, it is more commonly believed in modern times that the theory of evolution has proven the Holy Bible creation story wrong. Despite the controversy between the two views, extensive research shows that it is evident that the two ideas do not contradict, but rather coincide with one another, and that we cannot have one without the other. Science and the theory of evolution can explain how God created the earth, and the Bible explains why He created the earth.

Studied and followed by Christians and Jews alike, the book of Genesis in the Old Testament of the Holy Bible is one of the most accepted creationistic teachings in the world. This popular story states that God created the universe in six days and he did so by merely stating everything one by one into its own existence (Holy Bible New International Version,1986, Pg 25). The Bible itself offers no evidence to prove its side of the story; rather it relies on the faith of its believers to accept it as truth. Instead of offering proof as to how He did it, the book of Genesis as well as many other books in the Bible, do explain why God created all that He did. He did so because he was full of love and needed a creation to share it with. God wants us to share the love from which we are made, but we are not programmed too. Instead it is our choice. This choice makes it true love that is expressed individually expressed as well as it is what makes us truly unique and purposeful ("Why Did God Create Us?"). After many centuries of this story being accepted as the only source of truth, the discoveries of a man by the name of Charles Darwin would finally offer a theory to explain how Biblical Creation works.

According to the authors of Discover Biology Second Edition (2002), Darwin made a voyage to the Galapagos Islands in 1831 were he observed and collected a number of specimens of various animals. Most specifically he observed local finches. He noticed that on different islands, the finches had different beak sizes and shapes. After researching the environments of each of these birds, Darwin concluded that the birds had all come from one common ancestor and had adapted or evolved in order to survive in their individual environments. Furthermore, science has within the last century found new evidence to support the idea of evolution. According to Discover Biology Second Edition (2002) fossil records show similarities between species that lead back to the beginning of life with single cell organisms. Through the use of modern technology and radio carbon dating, which compares the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 atoms in a dead organism and can thus determine the time since its death ("How Carbon-14 Dating Works"), scientists have been able to calculate that the development of the earth took billions of years to achieve. All of this evidence goes to show the other spectrum of the balance between evolution and creation. Unlike creationism, it offers no evidence as to life's purpose, but it does offer facts as to how the building and existence of life is actually accomplished.

Despite these correspondences between creationism and evolutionism, there are still many that find irrefutable differences. Modern thought points out that evolution contradicts the Bible in such matters as the scientific theory that it took billions of years to develop the earth as opposed to six days. We also see that each species was formed out of adaptation from common ancestors as opposed to being individually created. However, these scientific discoveries only help to explain creation rather than contradict it.

Most Christians know and realize that the book of Genesis was not written as a way of proving God's existence, but rather it was written as a brief description of events to clarify the most basic question of our existence. The actual description that the Bible gives us is very brief. The article "Progressive Creationism" says that there are three ways creationists can explain this major difference, all of which explain that the book of Genesis was probably metaphorically written. The first of these ideas is Theistic evolutionism in which it is believed that God started life's process and then let it run its course. The second is the Gap theory in which it is believed that there is a large gap in time in the book of Genesis where many things happened that God did not tell us about. The third and most popular idea is Progressive Creationism in which it is believed that one day in the eyes of God is different than one day in our eyes.

Progressive creationists argue that before God created the earth, there was no earth to make a rotation and thus count a day, as we know it. Therefore God must have created the earth in his own six days. In fact the Bible proves this idea in Psalms 90:4 where David states while speaking to God, "a thousand years are as a day in your sight." David is not actually being specific here, instead he is using the metaphor of a thousand years being equal to one day to show that God's days are simply much longer than ours. To prove this idea with even more concrete evidence, Psychology professor Chris Montoya and physics student Graeme MacKay came up with a mathematical equation using Albert Einstein's theory of relativity that shows the relation in God's days to our days. According to their equation the history of the entire universe would be equivalent to 17 of God's days. This equation shows five incidences in which there is an almost exact consistency between the fossil record and the teaching of the Bible (Rick Hiebert, 2002, p. 49)

The Bible also shows a close relation between the order of events in how God created things and the order in which these things occurred according to science. For example, the Holy Bible New International Version (p.25) tells us that the oceans were among the first things to be created by God. According to "The Timeline of Evolution" Science also claims that this is true. The Bible then goes on to say hat the first creatures that were created lived in the sea. This too is a claim of science. God then creates animals on to live on the land and to live within their own "kinds" or classifications. Science tells us that Creatures sprang from the oceans and evolved into walking creatures on land. Taxonomy is used in science to classify animals in to many different categories. Finally the Bible says that God created man. According to evolution, man is one of the last big evolutionary changes.

When the Bible states that all living creatures were created and science states that they evolved, many people find a contradiction. This idea of adaptation of the species does not actually bother most Christians. The Bible never actually tells us of the actual process of how God creates. Modern Christians now believe that God uses evolution to create as well as to ensure the survival of his creations. Environments change and thus the organisms that dwell within these environments must change in order to survive. God knows this and must use evolution as a way of carrying out such a task. This idea is known the "Intelligent Design" theory.

Another point that some creationists make in defense of their half of this coexistence of theories, when scientists say that there is no proof of the theory of creation, is that there really is no actual proof that evolution occurs either. According to Creation and Evolution, paleontologists have found many fossils of many similar species that because of their similarities would suggest that they evolved from one another. On the other hand, they have not found any fossil record of the actual organisms that are in transition of these species. These fossil records that would show the connections between species are called links, and the lack of their existence is what scientists refer to as "missing links." These "missing links" make evolution a theory and not a law of science because without them, evolution cannot be one hundred percent proven.
Aside from the evidence that supports creationism, logic also plays a major role in Christian beliefs. According to Professor Andrew Storfer, the 18th century intelligent design theorist William Paley had the idea that certain traits in organisms were too complex to be random in nature. He says that a mammal's eye is so intricate and detailed that a supreme being must have created it. Evolution cannot equate perfection as Paley saw it in the mammal's eye. Paley related this to the intricacies of a telescope, which is designed and created by a man. Therefore the intricacies of life must be designed and created by a supreme being. This idea of logic is still present today. As Rich Heffern explains, the human conscience is an example of something that is simply too complex for evolution to randomly equate. Such a thing must be "engineered" and "fine-tuned" by a supreme being ('Promise' of the universe). Evolution relies on instinct of a species for it to survive. The human conscience is one thing that no order of evolution could see as necessary for survival, thus it must serve a higher purpose than survival of the fittest.

In his article 'Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences", William Dembski offers another idea from the world of intelligent design. He claims that all intelligence leaves behind a signature or trademark that he calls "specified complexity."
Something has specified complexity if it is complex and therefore not easily repeated by chance or if it exhibits and independent pattern. Dembski does state that in something like flipping a coin, if one does it long enough an improbable pattern is likely to eventually happen, and this does not eliminate chance. However it is unlikely that such a pattern can be frequently repeated. He claims that Darwin's theory of evolution, which is not directed by an intelligent designer, is incapable of creating specified complexity that exists in all living things. Because of this chance and necessity alone are unable to construct the complexity of life. There must be an intelligent designer that fits somewhere into the picture.

On the other hand, Robert Pennock explains in his article, "Mystery Science Theater", that there is no proof of any complex, mathematical patterns in the DNA of any organism and thus, Dembski cannot prove that design plays any role in the situation. Pennock explains that random genetic variation is subject to natural selection by the environment, which is already structured, and therefore it can be both complex and random, but not improbable. Nevertheless, there is still one major point that Pennock neglects to recognize. That is that genetic variation does not have to have a mathematical pattern that we as humans can comprehend. It is so complex that it may instead; conform to environmental patterns that are beyond human comprehension. An intelligent designer could establish these patterns.

Additionally, life itself as well as all things in existence must have a purpose. This is the number one argument for the theory of creation. It is one thing to be randomly developed and to evolve in order to survive, but why bother if there is no purpose in life? Nature cannot develop a reasoning for our existence and furthermore, nature cannot develop a reasoning for its own existence. The mechanics of everything from the human mind, right down to the growth of a tree's roots must mean that there is a motive for the existence of everything in the universe. The only way that we can have a purpose is if a supreme being created us for a reason and has a plan for us.

With evolutionism becoming more and more popular with the addition of more scientific evidence, creationism may seem to become less prevalent. However there is no reason to find that creation, at least according to the book of Genesis, should be negated by scientific data. If anything, creation is supported by new findings. Accepting these ideas in unison could bring religious and scientific disputes in America to an end. One idea explains the reasoning behind our existence, while the other explains the facts. It is possible that evolutionists can maintain their belief in hard evidence, but can also accept faith in a creator. It is important that we know our true beginnings so that we may understand our purpose as individuals in the world in which we live.