Evolution Vs Creation

Evolution Vs Creation
Background of the Evolution and the Creation Theory.
The main difference between the evolution theory and Creation theory is that one is based on archaeological data while the other is based on faith. Evolution also presents itself as a science, which requires scientific methodology to explain it.  In addition, Evolution mainly concerns itself with the history and the changes that have occurred in living things over time.

It seeks to find the link between the organisms by looking for common ancestry that evolved over time to give rise to different species.

The creation science is based on the belief that God created the Earth and all the creatures in it. Though referred to as a science it really is not a science because the belief in God or any other divinity in the creation of the world really is not a concrete science explanation of life’s origin.  In fact, creation theory is more of an explanation that is in line with the belief that an intelligent creator created the universe.  Creationists try to verify this notion and other Biblical stories by evaluating on scientific grounds. The creation science is derived from many Abrahamic religions. The ideas are based on the belief that God created the universe, the living and non-living things and the human beings. According to the creation theory, the animals came into being as individual and separate species; hence, they do not believe that organisms change into complete and distinct animal species. In addition, the creation theory does not believe that organisms began can develop into more complex plants and animals from a single celled organism.  Although it is not a scientific theory, the creation theory purports to prove their arguments against the evolution theory using science. Geologists, for instance, used to try to explain all the earth’s geological features in terms of Noah’s Flood.

History shows that except for the Bible, the other book that has had a major impact on the Western society is ‘The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin’.  Darwin in fact is the father of evolution through the wide discussions of evolution and natural selection in his book to the point that Evolution can be used interchangeably with Darwinism according to some people.   According to Darwin, Evolution is the development of change and adaptation within a natural


In Defense of the Creation Theory

In the computer industry, any computer system works in accordance to a design and contains highly coded information. Because of the intricacy of this intend and the highly coded information, we point the origin of design in such a machine to a gifted designer and coder. In fact, the more complicated the machine, the more setting up and consideration we attribute to its development and the more aptitude and capability we point to the designer. Computers themselves can assist as tools in the process of designing other computers, but ultimately the origin of the design can be attributed to careful planning and purpose apart from the machine and tools themselves or any process of nature.

No one would assume that an item as complex and sophisticated as a computer come about by chance or by natural processes. This idea would be considered a ridiculous proposition.  Likewise, various life forms on earth are far more intricate than computer apparatus. If truth were told, the joint knowledge of the best minds in all of human history has been unsuccessful in the quest to produce an appliance of the superiority and accomplishment of even the simplest duplicating life forms. The inbuilt design in the life on earth and the coded information contained within must be attributed to a designer of vastly superior intellect and ability than man.

It is lay down here as something evident, that design provides evidence for a designer and coded information implies the presence of a coder. It is therefore logical to conclude from unswerving life-experiences that when we come across something that has design, this demonstrates the reality of a designer, and likewise that coded information displays the existence of a coder. From consistent experience, it is evident that a creator is not the creation, but that a creator is present outside his creation. The proof in the world by itself is reason to presume the existence of a Creator, who exists outside of his creation.

In addition, one weakness of the evolution theory is that natural selection can cause minor changes within species but cannot produce new species from pre-existing species. Although there is plenty of confirmation for adaptive modifications within the species (microevolution), there is insufficient scientific evidence to examine one species becoming a completely altered, more highly advanced organism. For example, there are no examples in records of fish changing to an amphibian or even bacteria evolving from a different species other than bacteria.  Evolutionary biologists however disregard this argument using Othiel Charles’ discovery of fossil records of extinct horses, which widely supported the evolution theory. The discovery showed that larger horses were better able to live than small many-toed horses supporting the idea of natural selection.

Another recent theory to discredit the evolution theory is the second law of thermodynamics, the law of disorder.   This law states that although the amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is always decreasing, implying that overtime, ordered systems tend to become disorderly, unless the energy is made available and supplied to the creature order.  Therefore, according to creationist, this law does not permit order to arise from disorder, hence macroevolution of better things emerging from simpler forms are almost impossible to have occurred.

Using the same second law of thermodynamics, the creationists launch another argument against Evolution theory.  The second law also states that the entropy of a closed system increases over time. The earth, enclosed by the ozone layer happens to be a closed system, implying that it receives a controlled amount of energy from the sun.  The argument is based on the understanding of the Creationist on the connection of the entropy as a measure of unpredictability   or of the level of disorder in a system. The creationist presuppose that a change is categorized by a reduce in entropy cannot occur under any circumstances and impulsive entropy decreases can, occur all the time, as long as adequate energy is available.    In addition, in a closed system, turmoil grows and less energy is obtainable for work. A good instance of this is a battery; it breaks down as it works, and, in fact, stops working even when it is not in use. . In response to Creationist, evolutionists say that evolution relates to the second law of thermodynamics by making the argument that order can come from disorder in nature. “Every exchange in nature that takes place spontaneously always results in a loss of order. Natural selection always occurs in such a way that the complex tends to become less complex, order states tend to become disorder. Therefore, the universe is constantly becoming more disorder.”

Evolution, on the other hand, appears to be doing on the exact contradiction: life is evolving from the uncomplicated to the intricate, and everywhere around, there is increasing order, not disorder. In a rejoinder, evolutionists say that order increases over time, without any focused energy. Evolutionists believe that creationists are perplexed with the phrase “closed system”. To evolutionist, a closed system is one that obtains no new inputs of energy from an external source. The earth and evolution are not closed systems since there is unrestricted energy form the sun, which stimulates the life course and generates growing order. They further explain that the universe in not really a closed system because if living creatures could break out from the concepts of the second law of thermodynamics, then they could be in this world forever and there is no way that any living system on earth can directly defy the second law.

In accumulating information, there is a huge reliance on indirect information about what people have viewed. Even a scientist does this, and an evolutionist does too. An evolutionist quotes most of his information from write or spoken declaration by people who have observed things and a small amount of information from personal incidents. Just like a creationist. An ample defense of the legitimacy and consistency of the prehistoric chronological accounts that make up what we now call the bible is outside the scope of this document, so will have to be assumed as a principle. Although the bible is not required to support the fact of creation and the reality of the Creator, it is required to protect the historical period, the conditions wherein creation happened, and the identity of the Creator.

In considering creation/evolution, it is important to keep in mind that “chance” is not a basis anything. A person defending evolution often eliminates an intelligent originator as a reason for the origin of things happening, and in the invalid substitutes “chance.” Nevertheless, “chance” can be one of the evolutionist’s most unpleasant enemies. Figuratively speaking, what the evolutionist’s “chance” generates, the evolutionist’s “chance” should destroy, in the end. Chance is associated with uncertainty, and uncertainty is equated with chaos and disarray. Life on earth is an instance of implausible order and intricacy, which is not fully explained in the evolution theory.

The characteristic evolutionary notion of impulsive biogenesis entails living matter coming about from non-living material by chance. For example, supposing that in a theoretical elemental atmosphere, ammonia, methane, water and energy can unite to form amino acids. That this first step can take place is unquestionable and has been confirmed through laboratory experimentation (such as in the famous Miller/Urey experiment of 1953). However, to carry on beyond this point to living proteins by likelihood would entail a key miracle of such immense proportion that one would consider it easier to acknowledge the obvious (that it did not happen “by chance”).

Amino acids are molecules that have a three-dimensional geometry. Any particular molecule can survive in either of two mirror-image formations called left-handed and right-handed (in non-technical language). Living matter is made up only of left-handed amino acids. Right-handed amino acids are not helpful to living organisms, and are in fact often toxic. The haphazard formation of amino acids brings into being an identical quantity of left-handed and right-handed molecules. This has been established by laboratory test and is essentially, what Miller created in his famous test-tube try-out (putting methane, ammonia, and water all together and zapping them with electrical discharges.)

Life cannot therefore consist of a combination of left-handed and right-handed amino acids. So it would take a massive series of coin-flips (with consecutive heads all along) to come up with a protein that could make up living matter. Yet there is more. Proteins consist of amino acids bonded together with only peptide bonds. Amino acids can also merge with non-peptide bonds similarly without any difficulty. In fact, origin-of-life researches in the laboratory result only about 50% peptide bonds. Therefore, it would take another huge cycle of coin flips to come up with a protein that could comprise living matter. In addition, any particular protein contains amino acids that are joined together in a particular progression geometrically. At a least amount, that sequence must be correct for any set of protein at all the active sites, which encompass about half of the amino acids in the protein. Proteins contain anywhere from 50 to as many as 1750 amino acids, depending on the particular protein.

The notion of natural selection involves a tautology and is not a reason that would be expected to effect in different or more complex designs. A tautology is a statement that includes all possibilities and is therefore useless. A tautology cannot be used in justification of a position since it is a summary of the evident and adds no useful information.

Here is the “survival of the fittest” tautology:

Q: Who survives? A: Why, the fittest do, of course!

Q: And what do the fittest do? A: Why, they survive, of course!

Q: And who are the survivors? A: The fittest

Q: And what do they do? A: Survive!

Every case of an animal living or dying can be elucidated by the “survival of the fittest” phrase, regardless of whether evolution or creation actually took place. Think about how natural selection applies even in the computer industry, where there is evidence on the origin of things. The superior computers trade and people buy the good computers. The poor computers do not sell, and people do not buy the bad computers. The creation of the best computers and the extermination of the bad are observed. The computers have actually become better and more refined. Nevertheless, this is not an elucidation for the origin of the computers and their inbuilt functionality, but only their sustained existence in the marketplace. In each case, every characteristic of the superiority and intricacy of a computer can be attributed to gifted design by actual designers.

The neo-Darwinian evolutionist should be dared to explain by what process of nature the inventive functionality of life forms originates. A predator eating prey is not an explanation for the origin of any groundbreaking functionality, but only it is possible destruction if one trait should be driven to extinction. Moreover, haphazard genetic mutations should be anticipated to distort the existing coded genetic information.

Genetics invalidates evolution. Given that neither random genetic mutations, nor natural selection, nor both put jointly can be well thought-out as a vehicle for one breed of animal to transform into a functionally dissimilar or more compound breed of animal, then differences in interbreeding animals must be controlled to what is already in the gene pool. One classic illustration given for evolution is the peppered moth. In the mid-19th century, 98% of peppered moths were light. The light moths mingled in well with the mottled gray lichen on the trees. With the industrialized age, contamination killed the lichen on the trees, making them dark. Birds opted for the light moths for their meal and ignored the dark moths. By the mid-20th century, 98% of the moths were dark, implying that there was no change in the moths.

Each species of animals has a DNA pool. A DNA pool is all the singular genes that all the elements of a species collectively have. Previously- existing genetic information permits deviations to occur among members of that species as individuals within that species interbreed. In reference to the peppered moth, the genetic information previously present in the gene pool, and one genetic attribute became more widespread in the populace because of the changing surroundings and the actuality that birds use their eyes to mark their food.

Such changes demonstrate the concept of what is often referred to as “micro-evolution.” A scientific hypothesis is verified through hypothetical analysis and laboratory experimentation/observation.. Evolutionists mention all types of alleged examples of beneficial mutations. The burden of proof is on them, however, to illustrate that a particular advantageous trait was a mutation to start with. It should also be noted that sometimes animals within one species form different groups that no longer interbreed. However, this does not prove evolution but disapproves evolution, which requires the DNA varieties to increase to allow for more variations. On the contrary,  the DNA pool in such a case has gotten smaller as each new group exhibits new sets of genetic traits hence will result in less varieties in future generations


Darwinism as science is different from creationism, which is faith and religion. Science is a method of knowing about the natural world. It is restricted to explaining the ordinary world through natural cause. Science has no authority or say over the supernatural. The existence of God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral. This deliberation will persist until some can provide evidence that Darwinism is correct with scientific confirmation or even prove that Creationism is precise by scientific evidence, too.

However, Life on earth came about by a special inventive act of God. A complete set of life varieties, including man, was created at once. This happened approximately several thousand years ago in less than a week. The ‘hows’  and ‘whys’ are not fully comprehendible though there is a quest to pursue further knowledge given those details that we are sure of, accepting the influence of what the Creator has to utter over the more restricted information acquired by examining His creation. The Creator is more informed, and no one was there to monitor life come about on earth.

Hopefully this not only offers a defense for “creation,” but also makes clear why “creationists” are always appealing to the Creator (God) and testimony that comes from Him (the Bible). Because if you really want to know about how something was designed, it is best to consult the person who designed it.



Works Cited

Enoch., H. Evolution or Creation. Michigan: Evangelical Press, 1967.

Gish, Duane T. Creation Scientists Answer their Critics. Institute for Creation Research, 1993.

Pratney, Winkey. Creation or Evolution. Lindale: Pretty Good Printing, 1982.

Prothero, Donald R. Evolution: What the fossils say and why it matters. New York : Columbia, 2007.