creationVevolution

"Conservatives Today, Thinking Right"

Creation V. Evolution...

Which came first Creation or Evolution?

What is all the hullabuloo over today when it comes to discussing where we came from, as well as where every living thing around us came from? Why is it that there are those that don’t want the theory of Creation taught side by side with the theory of Evolution?

To start with, what exactly is the difference in the two? The first thing that will be used against Creation is that it is religious material, and we can’t forget the "rule" of "seperation of church and state." Well, for starters, this "rule" was contrived by the Courts, so it isn’t law, and secondly, Creation science is only religious if you make it religious in the classroom.

Creation science taught in the classroom is no different than the theory of evolution. Creation science, with the religious aspect taken out, is nothing more than one group of people’s reasoning of how we and all that is around us came to be. How is that any different than what the theory of evolution is? Is that not also a group of people’s reasoning of how we and all that is around us came to be? So what’s the beef?

Well, personally, I think the beef is with the whole concept that anything but evolution would even be considered as an alternative concept as how man came to be. That would take the limelight away from something that science wants to push as "fact" when there is no evidence to support it as such. Many people who are forced to study this subject never give it a second thought. They are simply yes-men to get through a course, receive a credit and go on with life. But some, such as myself, aren’t so willing to just let things slide by without asking some questions.

Simply because I want to know the fundamental answers to questions that have yet went unanswered, to some who are more educated than I, make me appear or seem intolerable.

But taking into consideration both the theory of evolution and the matter of the theory of creation, religion can have more to it's meaning than an adherence to God and Biblical teaching. It is also described as:

"a cause, principle, or SYSTEM OF BELIEFS held to with ardor (extreme vigor or energy; syn, passion) and faith (one meaning is literally "firm belief in something for which there is no proof)"
Source: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.

This could be easily applied to both theories of mankind’s coming into existence to where he is today. Therefore, the following statement could be told as true fact, if one cares to read and understand the English Language. The theory of evolution is taught and held in such high regard in the scientific community and with some science teachers in our school systems, according to the definition applied above, it can be considered religious science.

Would we be able to classify the theory of creation as a HYPOTHESIS? Again, Merriam-Westers’s Collegiate Dictionary states that when using the word hypothesis, which is a synonym of "theory", it implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation. A tentative explanation would mean an explanation based solely or mainly on tenets, in this case those would be religious tenets. Merriam-Webster describes tenet as "a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true, especially : one held common by members of an organization, movement, or profession", such as the members of the religious organizations, movements, and professions.

Now, could you apply the same paragraph above to the theory of evolution? Try it, but where it has the words religious, replace them with scientific.

At best the theory of evolution is based on scientific conjecture. But one thing is sure with both the theory of evolution and creation science, since neither have been "scientifically proven" and neither are beyond reproof, both have one major thing in common. One has to put FAITH in either in order to BELIEVE either.

In order for anyone to believe either the theory of evolution or the theory of creation, one must put a certain degree of faith in either, because neither are provable in the scientific field. Merriam-Webster’s defines belief and gives three different definitions:

BELIEF:

1) a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.
2) something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group.
3) conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon : especially when based on examination of evidence.

In the first stages of the theory of evolution, when it first began it's introduciton into the scientific field with Darwin's studies presented at it's early stages, definition three would more fit the situation. Although, evolutionary changes were still a mystery, and all of Darwin's notes were based on speculation, therefore, a great deal of definition number two must also be heavily leaned on to support all of Darwin's work in the scientific community.

And even still, in science today, it seems that definition number two is even more so relied upon to support the theory of evolution, because some of the original works have been proven wrong, and also because some new findings have been added to the puzzle.

But one thing that baffles me about science is that there is a never ending "BELIEF" that the theory of evolution is accepted as "FACT", by a great many scientists of today. Even though it is still supported by tenets (a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially : one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession), such as the scientific community. And in order to believe on something that is unfounded in fact and not proven yet in the scientific field, you must have a certain degree of faith in what are beleiving in. Faith is defined as a synonym of belief (almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof). Another synonym of belief listed along with faith is credence (suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent). The word credence means "mental acceptance as true or real". (synonym see BELIEF)

As explained above, evolution is in and of itself a type of religion, perhaps grounded in secularism and Darwinism.

Many cry out for immediate proof when the two theories are presented side by side; proof on the side of Creationism that is. And even when presented with proof, they still are not satisfied. And am I surprised? No. Because these people will never be satisfied, they do not want proof, they want acceptance of thier theory as fact. And no questions asked about the gaps that aren’t filled in.

Science's good argument:

One thing I have a problem with is carbon dating in science and creationism stating that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Carbon dating has been proven accurate by the scientific study of how much carbon 14 a speciman has.

Creation's bad argument:

Creationism claims that the earth is only around 5,000 years old. How do you know this? Did you calculate the time using the chronolouge of the written Word? If so, did you overlook the passage where God stated that;

"To me one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as one day."

In the book of Genisis, with this passage in mind, how do we know that it was only seven earth days that God spent creating this earth? Perhaps it is just a time reference to satisfy our feeble minds so that we can keep it in some kind of perspective so as not to dwell on things that, in the long run, are not important to the overall objective. In other words, time is irrelevant to God.

So perhaps carbon dating is correct after all?

Evolution can still be classified as theory, and to my knowledge science still sees it that way and calls it that because no one can produce hard evidence to support or raise the theory to the level of scientific law. Science hasn’t even established enough evidence to raise the theory of evolution to the level of PROBABILITY.

At best the Theory of Evolution is scientific conjecture.

To Summarize:

Evolution is scientific religion based in the belief of tenets that are espoused to declare and uphold scientific dogma, based on scientific tenets, used in the "theory of evolution" readily accepted with no proof needed to sustain their acceptance, simply an assertion that it "likely" happened that way, it is based on what is known as Darwinism.

It, in and of itself, is based and built on the same principles that is used to tear down, discredit, and prohibit teaching creation science in public schools today. That being simply a presumption of readily accepted whims and notions as "scientific fact", thus the justification for calling it preached dogma in the scientific community and the classrooms.

It is thrown around with a dictatorial attitude by the secularists of today, and by those who seek to readily seperate church and state. Yet on the same breath they preach their "theory" in the same way that Creation is preached in the Churches by Christians according to them. To the secularist, Creation Science is a myth, the Bible is a myth, full of fairy tales, but they are afraid to have to preach one myth beside the other myth, because they fear something, what, I'm not quite sure. Teaching Creation Science is not teaching religion or religious beliefs, it is, in their words, nothing more than another fairy tale, a myth, a "theory of creation".

The "theory of evolution" is a widely held scientific belief, not based on proven facts, not proven as fact, simply accepted at face value, forced upon the students whether they agree or not as the way man came into existence, it is dictatorial scientific dogma. It is an ism, which is a type of doctrine, theory, or cult based on the teachings and studies of Darwin, hence the term, Darwinism. The very idea that it is taught in the science classrooms around the country give credence to it as a whole, yet it is nothing more than a hypothetical, a theory, not even able to rise to the level of probability, science classifies it as a "likelihood", which points to probability, but doesn't quite reache that threshold. It is "supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof". How many times were you able to do a science experiment based on those principles? Well, I can almost prove it, but not quite, Mr. Teacher, is that good enough for the grade?

Again, the "theory of creation" is no different, it's just that some people don't like that theory, but that's ok, because it comes from a book that some use as a religious guide book, but to those that do not believe in religion, why do they fear the competition of an alternate theory?