The Evolution Vs. Creationism Conflict
...ution. They believe that life was presented all at once in nearly the same complex forms that are seen today. That is to say, that there were no changes from simplistic to more advanced life forms as suggested by evolution. Furthermore, it is believed that fossils of pre-historic species that no longer exist are just examples of extinction and not the ancestors of an evolved species. Creationists generally use common sense to disprove science and present their theory. More extreme creationists believe that those who believe in evolution hate God. Creationism is the fundamental belief that most people have wrestled with in the past and is still a very strong force today. There are many reasons for evolutionists and creationists to be in conflict with each other. Many creationists hold a sense of loyalty to their holy doctrines and fear that abandoning belief in them would prove that their religion is false. Conflict is feasible because it has been implausible for science to come up with indisputable evidence for evolution. Or possibly, it is complete ignorance on the creationist standpoint that creates conflict. It could be that creationists are uneducated and simply refuse to accept new, contradicting evidence because their fundamentalist belief shuts the door on science in exchange for supreme being power. Perhaps science needs to recognize that a supreme being was indeed partly or wholly responsible for the creation of life and earth. Conflict will continue until society can grasp a coherence among the two beliefs. How can science reconcile itself with the long history of creationism and become an accepted theory of the origin of life and earth? This question is important to the continued acceptance of research advances in science and to the validation of religious beliefs in the face of new scientific discoveries. In the July 1998 issue of The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, an article titled “The Creation-Evolution Controversy” argues that the Genesis story stands up well against the Darwinian theory. The article questions Darwin’s theory that all species grew from a single cell through mutation and natural selection. It points out that if all species were to grow from a single living cell, then science is yet to produce fossils showing links between the species such as from reptiles to birds. Even when looking at development of embryos, the article concedes that five digits develop on human fingers, bird’s wings, and fish fins; but all come from different types of cells and develop at different rates for entirely different uses. The Herald attributes these differences to a divine creator. Natural selection or “the survival of the fittest” is characterized in this article as the ability to survive without any upward progression or genetic changing. Natural selection is likened to a function of the environment in which a species lives. In the final analysis, the article purposes that the body is a very complex organism with many separate and difficult processes which could only be attributed to God’s intelligence in creating life. The Citizens for the Ten Commandments published an essay entitled “Evolution is Wrong and Deceptive.” They state that the evolution theory is a massively deceptive fable seeking to describe the creation of this world and its inhabitants. “Evolution is a strange, broad, irrational, and disconnected conjecture made up from a mind full of hatred for God.” The article suggests that most things in life go downhill without human interaction, but evolution suggests that things arrange themselves for the better and create a stable unity between everything. The authors state that there is no proof in evolution and they dismiss the theory that humans evolved from ape-like beings. Species are the way that they are because God made them that way. These creationists state the similarities in creatures are simply just similarities and have nothing to do with evolution. The goal of evolution is to clear away evidence of a divine creation and replace it with a ludicrous alternative, which dishonors God with its deception. In his article “Science Teaching, and the Search for Origins,” Kenneth R. Miller states that evolution can be compatible with traditional religious beliefs. In fact, most western religions have long since accommodated Darwin within their views of human and biological origins. Nonetheless, many religious people still feel that the findings of evolution are hostile to religion. A typical argument is that evolution is too unpredictable and involves an element of chance, which a loving creator could not have used in creating our species. Miller refutes that the unpredictability of evolution results from the contingent nature of any historical process and unpredictable forces on human and natural affairs was an essential feature of any creation by a loving God. Unpredictability sets creation apart in distinction from its creator and the only alternative would be a strict determination of our future at the creator’s will. Another argument of religious people is that evolution is too cruel. The repeated cycles of bloody competition and extinction are too cruel to be compatible with divine purpose and plan. Miller again argues that evolution is not so cruel that it cannot be compatible with the notion of a loving God. Competition in species for existence is also matched by involvement of cooperation and care that shows extraordinary beauty. The final objection of evolution by religious people is that evolution is too indirect. If the Creator’s purpose was to create us, why would he not have done so directly? Why was it necessary to produce so many worlds, so many different species, all destined for extinction? Miller states that the indirectness of evolution is exactly comparable to the indirectness of historical, social, and even linguistic change, and yet none of these is incompatible with the concept of divine will and purpose. Miller claims that even to a traditional believer, evolutionary biology is not the obstacle that we often think it is. He believes that science and religion can coexist and actually strengthen each other to help us understand the wonders of nature. American Atheists president, Ellen Johnson says that creationism is an unacceptable explanation for the existence of the human species because it has no basis in science whereas there is no dispute among reputable scientists about the scientific basis of evolutionary theory. Due to the scientific basis of evolution it should be included in public education, but creationism shouldn’t. Lacking scientific evidence to support their story creationists resort to subterfuge to promote their theology. They suppress competitive ideas and camouflage theology as a pseudo science. Creationists argue that if evidence for evolution is taught, then the evidence against it should also be taught. The problem with that is there is no scientific evidence against evolution. Johnson ends by noting that religiously motivated ignorance may be comforting, but actual knowledge of our past will allow Homo sapiens to survive and thrive. My next source written by evolutionist Scott Anderson, is titled “Creation and Scientific Logic.” Anderson explains that creationism demands that the logic of the scientific method be abandoned in favor of whatever logic one might be able to scrape out of the Bible. Creationism suggests that all planetary, biological, historical, and astronomical evidence that coincides with evolutionary theory have been misinterpreted. Anderson questions how all of this evidence could be so wrong when it all seems to fit together so well. He states that creationists still have to prove that science is wrong before they can begin postulating how the errors persisted for so long. To replace evolution with creationism would mean throwing away all data about the age of the universe, psychological testing data, athropology, archaeology, and biology. In short, thousands of theories an...