Comparison-Theory of Evolution vs Creationism Theory

The Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution May 2011

In this essay I will compare the Theory of Creationism and the Theory of Evolution. While there are many that deeply believe in each of these theories, they present stark differences in thinking, and in individual beliefs.
Let us begin by looking at Creationism. This particular theory has not a single shred of evidence to support it, yet vast populations are willing to die rather than denounce it. It has been referred to as “The Truth”. The basic belief of this theory is that “The Lord God”, or a “Supreme Being” created the universe and everything in it. It is believed that we as humans were made in the image of “God”. God created man, and called him “Adam”. Adam was lonely and The Lord then took a rib from Adam while he slept, and with it he created woman. God called her “Eve”. The creation of the universe and everything in it took six days. On the seventh day, God rested.
In stark contrast to the Creationist Theory, we have what is called the Theory of Evolution. Charles Darwin is credited with first proposing this theory, which also includes something known as ‘natural selection”. First things first, let us examine evolution. Darwin believed that we as humans, as wells animals and even plants are constantly changing. His belief and that of many others is that with every generation slight modifications are inherent, thus producing better and better offspring. By this this he means better adapted to survive and flourish. “If it could ever be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Charles Darwin). To summarize, the basis of theory here is the guiding force or “natural selection” preserves beneficial variations, therefore each generation exhibits new and more complex organisms. This applies to the tiniest bug or seedling, as well as all plants and animals including human beings.
Science however is yet to prove either theory. “It must be said that the details of this process remain obscure and are not likely to be known in the near future.” (The RNA World, p72-73). It must be understood that science is based on two assumptions known as “axioms”. Axioms represent self-evident assumptions. Scientists would not be able to continue the study of science without the observable axiom. If this were the case doubt would inevitably be cast on all scientific theories. Whereby if scientists were not able to observe reality, or if they were to observe it inaccurately, the basis of all scientific theories would be thrown out. It is most fortunate for mankind that the majority of people see this axiom clearly, without the need for instruction or clarity. While keeping in mind the observable axiom we must examine the naturalistic axiom. The naturalistic axiom differs from the observable axiom because unlike the observable axiom, the naturalistic axiom can be tested. This means science can function perfectly without it being easily observed by 90% of the population. Still, the means by which life originated is not currently understood. Because of the complicated problems that arise when studying life’s origin the more we begin to understand it, the more lost we become in respect to it. It seems to elude scientists more and more with each successive study revealing more mysterious problems then the last.
In regard to the origin of life, the naturalistic axiom only permits science to investigate theories that exclude things that cannot be tested and proven. That means the study of theories without proof, such as supreme beings will not be considered. This places scientists in a rather precarious position. Not only is the opportunity to study God-related ideas not permitted, but evolutional ideas have not been proven either. Since evolutionists are not willing to abandon the naturalistic axiom they are forced to make one final observation. They must assume that science will inevitably discover the origin of life in the future. Therefore nothing has been proven-only assumptions have been made. Many scientists however have already accepted that evolution can be proved, yet I have not seen evidence of either theory.
It is because of the lack of evidence that I make an observation myself. In other words, I presume to know one thing: Our beliefs are of a personal nature. They are not to be criticized or debated. Not an ounce of proof is necessary. Neither is the application of any type of axiom. No matter if an individual chooses either of the theories discussed in this paper, or proposes a theory of their own, or decides that no theory is even adequate-whatever one believes can never be wrong. While many would like to impose their beliefs on others, it is not an acceptable practice on any level. To attempt to do so has far reaching consequences and many times results in catastrophic illness, heartbreak and death. I find it unconscionable, yet it is occurring in many parts of the world even as this essay is written. Decisions can only be made for oneself. If only every person everywhere would stop to consider this, it is this author’s opinion that the world would be a much happier place.

References
RNA World p 72, 73
The Quoted works of Charles Darwin

References: RNA World p 72, 73 The Quoted works of Charles Darwin