Evolution Vs. Creationism: Disproving the Theory of Evolution

Evolution vs. Creationism: Disproving The Theory of Evolution

Since the 19th century, biologists have questioned the origin of life, asking the question "How did life first begin?" To answer that question, they have come up with two contradicting yet plausible theories, Creation and Evolution. The theory of Creation states that an intelligent being designed each organism. On the other hand, the theory of Evolution states that some form of stimuli sparked one of the earliest forms of life and that every single organism living today evolved from it. Starting with the evidence and the criticism for the theory of Evolution, this paper will provide the main arguments and criticism for both theories and explain why Creation is the true explanation for the origin of the world.

The argument used to support the idea of Evolution that some form of stimuli sparked one of the earliest forms of life is "The Miller-Urey experiment." In this experiment, which was performed in the 1950s, an American graduate student Stanly Miller, and his PhD. Advisor, Harold Urey succeeded in producing some of the chemical building blocks of life by sending an electric spark through a mixture of gases they thought simulated the Earth's primitive atmosphere (Wells 11). They created a strong reducing gas, or gas that lacks oxygen. This is reasonable because people thought that the Earth was made out of interstellar gas (13), which is primarily made out of hydrogen, not oxygen. Anyways, seeing that lightning could produce the basic building blocks of life, evolutionists claimed that this is how life first originated! In addition to the statement above, whether oxygen was prevalent or not prevalent back then is crucial to understanding the result of this experiment because a living cell could not have emerged from a place abundant of oxygen. This is because the same oxygen that is necessary for respiration is often fatal to organic synthesis (Wells 12), which is the process by which the first organism has been created (if it ever was as believed in the evolution theory). Therefore, if oxygen existed at the very place where life emerged, there would have been an explosion instead of a creation! However, because Stanley and Miller created an oxygen-lacking atmosphere their experiment is widely used as evidence for evolution.

Another argument used to support the idea of evolution is that living things evolved from a primordial organism (ooze) from natural selection. This idea, proposed by Charles Darwin, states that only organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and pass genetic characteristics to their offspring (Williams 456). It also states that these genetic characteristics affect the organism's fitness (Williams 457). For example, Charles Darwin observed thirteen species of finches in the Galapagos Islands (Wells 159). They were very similar to each other, except that their beaks were different in shape and that they lived in different environments, which exposed them to different types of food . After careful recordings and observations, he concluded that all thirteen finches had a common ancestor and that their beaks were modified (Wells 162), which made them suitable to the environment they were in, over time. For example, the beak of the large ground finch, Geospiza magnirostris, is suited to cracking the seeds that compose the bird's diet (Feldkamp 286). Another type of finch, the woodpecker finch Camarynchus pallidus has a beak that is specialized for capturing insects ( Feldkamp 286). If natural selection takes place for ages, populations will eventually differ. (Williams 457).In conclusion, many people reason that evolution did occur and that it is still occurring through natural selection.

Another widely used piece of evidence for supporting Evolution is that apes and humans have the same ancestry. Inevitably, there are evidences that suggest this idea. For example, Thomas Henry Huxley, the author of "Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature," compared the skeletons of apes and humans, and found out that they have similar bone structures (Wells 214). Having observed that, he concluded that the only way for them to have similar bone structures is through evolution; for evolution is thought to result in similar organisms, which would have similar bone structures. Thus he concluded that humans and apes have the same ancestry.

A British paleontologist named Charles Dawson also provided evidence by discovering some pieces of human skull with an ape-like lower jaw with two teeth, now known as the Piltdown Skull because it was found in Piltdown, Britain (Wells 217). Many people concluded that this is the missing link between humans and apes. With these remarkable findings, evolutionists claim that humans and apes have evolved from a common ancestor and thus, they concluded that evolution does/in fact occur.

Even though all the evidence for evolution may seem tenable against criticism as of now, evolutionists are actually posed with arguments that if true, would prove evolution wrong. "The Miller-Urey experiment" will be discussed firstly. This experiment was actually a failure because it as discovered that Miller's postulation about the primitive atmosphere was wrong! As discussed earlier, Miller's postulation was that it lacked oxygen. However, people now acknowledge that it actually consisted quite a bit of oxygen. According to Princeton University geochemist Heinrich Holland and Carnegie Institution geophysicist Philip Abelson, the earth's primitive atmosphere was not derived from interstellar gas clouds, but from gases released by the Earth's own volcanoes, which also release various substances including water vapor. (Gish 14-15). These water vapors would then produce oxygen through a process called photo dissociation. In this process, water vapor in the upper atmosphere contact with the ultraviolet rays from the space (Gish 15, 17). When contacted, water vapor is separated into hydrogen and oxygen. Because hydrogen is too light, it leaves the atmosphere to space. However, oxygen remains (Gish 15, 17). Thus, if Holland and Abelson's assumption is correct, there must have been at least some amount of oxygen in the primitive atmosphere. Hence, there could not have been the building blocks of life forming.

Another criticism for the experiment is biogenesis, which states "all living things come from other living things." (Feldkamp 261) For instance, pick up a soccer ball. Then kick it, punch it, worship it, talk to it, and wash it. Leaving it on the ground for few hundred years would also be a good idea. Now, are there any living creatures crawling out of the ball? If there are, it should be a worm from the ground that climbed up the ball. As such, any stimulus to a non living thing can