by Edgar Humphrey

Created on: March 05, 2007   Last Updated: May 11, 2007

The great "debate" between creation and evolution only exists among laymen. Wishful thinkers praying for truth in creation argue against evolution because they lack a basal understanding of evolution theory. Those in the accredited scientific community know that evolution doesn't address the origins of life, but rather it's continuous development. They understand evolution as fact. When they research the causes of evolution, they are developing the theory behind it. In other words, scientists, biologists, and anthropologists of the World do not question whether life on Earth has evolved, but rather how it has evolved.

First off, let's all admit that what we'd like to believe is in no way contingent on "what is". Too often I come across the creationist argument that: "it's morally wrong to believe mankind evolved from apes". This is one of the most disturbing positions against evolution. Shamelessly pushing a line of thought that completely disregards reason in order to shield one's own emotional and spiritual sensibilities is nothing short of intellectual butchery.

Many creationists and "intelligent design" proponents claim evolution theory is full of inexplicable gaps. The human eye for example, is a staple argument against evolution. Creationists say the human eye is "irreducibly complex" (basically that means "ahh...I don't get it"). After all, how could these highly complicated mechanisms, the retina, the lens, and the iris, develop or evolve independent of each other? If evolution theory were true, each structure would need to have served some sort of function all on it's own in order to evolve into such a complicated mechanism...right?

Charles Darwin was somewhat stumped by this question and in his time it was indeed compelling. However, 150 years later science has made a host of discoveries that explain the development of the eye as it applies to evolution theory. We now have evidence of hundreds of gradations, or stages of development, that show the eye in it's simplest form, a light sensitive patch of cells, to it's most complex form (e.g. an eagles eye). We now know these separate structures can indeed develop independently of each other and we have the living models to prove it. So it's not only possible that the eye evolved through a series of gradations, it's viewed as the most probable explanation amongst those in the qualified scientific community.

Creationists often claim fossil records lack continuity and thus illustrate another "inexplicable

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>