Evolution A Theory? Essay, Research Paper
A basic argument used by creationists is that evolution is “only a theory and cannot be proven.” This
creationist argument is based on the false assumption that the only way to “prove” evolution is for
someone to actually observe large evolutionary changes, for example birds evolving from dinosaurs.
Since this can’t be accomplished in a few lifetimes, creationists claim that “proving” evolution is
impossible. This argument totally ignores the enormous amount of factual data that supports the
position that present life forms are descended from primitive ancestors. Whether evolution is true or
not depends on a careful and rational examination of the facts.
A fact is something that is supported by clear and incontrovertible evidence. For example, the Grand
Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit Shale,
and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils, and when a layer contains fossils, they
are characteristic of that layer. Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but
that doesn’t change the facts themselves; they are incontrovertible.
Another fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between
humans and modern apes. They have brow ridges that are larger than humans, but smaller than apes;
likewise their teeth and jaws are larger than humans, but smaller than modern apes.
Numerous fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate between dinosaurs and birds and run
the gamut from non-flying reptiles with feathers to birds that retain some reptilian characteristics, like
teeth and tail bones.
Persons may interpret the meaning of these fossils in different ways, but that doesn’t alter the fact that
they do exist.
Facts stand alone; they are independent of whether a person accepts evolution or rejects evolution.
In the world of science there are easily a hundred thousand “facts” relating to biology, astronomy,
geology, and so on. It is only natural to try to correlate all this information into explanations that make
sense and that can predict other correlations. These explanations and correlations provide the
“theories” of science.
In any language, usage determines the meaning of a word. In science, the meaning of the word
“theory” has been clearly established by usage; its fundamental meaning is a logical explanation based
on all the available evidence. In order for theories to be given credence by the scientific community,
they must be capable of predicting further correlations.
Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or
they may lack credibility. But theories only explain the facts; they are not the facts themselves.
The statement that evolution is “a theory, not a fact” is based on the belief that a theory is something
that can not be proven, and therefore is not a “fact.” This view grossly distorts the meanings of the
words “theory” and “fact,” and diverts attention from the large amount of factual evidence supporting
evolution.
A basic argument used by creationists is that evolution is “only a theory and cannot be proven.” This
creationist argument is based on the false assumption that the only way to “prove” evolution is for
someone to actually observe large evolutionary changes, for example birds evolving from dinosaurs.
Since this can’t be accomplished in a few lifetimes, creationists claim that “proving” evolution is
impossible. This argument totally ignores the enormous amount of factual data that supports the
position that present life forms are descended from primitive ancestors. Whether evolution is true or
not depends on a careful and rational examination of the facts.
A fact is something that is supported by clear and incontrovertible evidence. For example, the Grand
Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit Shale,
and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils, and when a layer contains fossils, they
are characteristic of that layer. Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but
that doesn’t change the facts themselves; they are incontrovertible.
Another fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between
humans and modern apes. They have brow ridges that are larger than humans, but smaller than apes;
likewise their teeth and jaws are larger than humans, but smaller than modern apes.
Numerous fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate between dinosaurs and birds and run
the gamut from non-flying reptiles with feathers to birds that retain some reptilian characteristics, like
teeth and tail bones.
Persons may interpret the meaning of these fossils in different ways, but that doesn’t alter the fact that
they do exist.
Facts stand alone; they are independent of whether a person accepts evolution or rejects evolution.
In the world of science there are easily a hundred thousand “facts” relating to biology, astronomy,
geology, and so on. It is only natural to try to correlate all this information into explanations that make
sense and that can predict other correlations. These explanations and correlations provide the
“theories” of science.
In any language, usage determines the meaning of a word. In science, the meaning of the word
“theory” has been clearly established by usage; its fundamental meaning is a logical explanation based
on all the available evidence. In order for theories to be given credence by the scientific community,
they must be capable of predicting further correlations.
Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or
they may lack credibility. But theories only explain the facts; they are not the facts themselves.
The statement that evolution is “a theory, not a fact” is based on the belief that a theory is something
that can not be proven, and therefore is not a “fact.” This view grossly distorts the meanings of the
words “theory” and “fact,” and diverts attention from the large amount of factual evidence supporting
evolution.
Noah’s Ark
? 1996 Frank Steiger; permission granted for retransmission.
Creation position
The flood was created by God to “cleanse” the world of mankind, which (in God’s judgement), had
become wicked and therefore a source of disappointment to God. All men, women, children, and
babies (except for Noah and his family) were killed by drowning.
A large wooden ship was constructed by Noah, or at least under his direction. The ship was
approximately 450 feet long and had stalls and pens sufficient to accommodate every species of bird
and land animal now existing. (Some creationists believe that the ark sequestered every species of
land animal that ever existed.) Prior to the flood one male and one female of every species was
motivated to travel, and did travel, from all over the world to the ark. Although there are thousands
of species of present-day birds and land animals, this is the result of diversification; the total number
of species at the time of Noah was probably much smaller.
Although there were only eight persons on board to feed and clean up after all the animals, the work
load was considerably reduced by the fact that the animals were kept in the dark and therefore
entered into a state of hibernation.
The earth’s human population and all present-day species of birds and land animals are all
descendants of the Noah’s ark survivors.
There have been numerous aerial sightings and eyewitness accounts of persons who have actually
seen the ark close up on the slopes Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey.
Evolution position
Constructing a wooden ship the size of the ark in times of antiquity would require an enormous
expenditure of labor and materials. Where did Noah, by all accounts an ordinary man, obtain the
resources?
Wooden ships do not withstand violent wind and wave forces very well, and this is particularly true
for large wooden ships. The longest modern wooden ships are about 300 feet long, and require steel
reinforcing to prevent breaking up.
The contention that a wooden ship 450 feet long could withstand the catastrophic forces postulated
in the creationist scenario has to be met with considerable skepticism.
There are over a hundred thousand separate and distinct species of present day birds and land
animals. It would be physically impossible for eight persons (Noah, his wife, his three sons and their
wives) to provide for the care and feeding of all the flies, termites, worms, snails, fleas, bats, frogs,
spiders, bark beetles, intestinal parasites, etc, etc.
Then of course we have several hundred species of larger animals that require 50 to 100 pounds of
fodder per day: hippos, rhinos, buffalo, elephants, horses, cattle, giraffes, elk. moose, etc, etc. (Not
to mention the enormous grazing dinosaurs that some creationists believe were sequestered in the
ark.)
Many, if not most, plants and/or their seeds will not survive a year under water. Did Noah transplant
trees from all over the world into tubs to store in the ark, and if so, how did he manage to acquire
them?
Don’t forget the meat eating animals. How did Noah acquire the tons of meat required for the diet of
all those lions, tigers, hyenas, wolves, etc? (Not to mention Tyranosaurus Rex, Allosaurus, and all the
rest!) In order for predatory animals like lions, wolves, etc. to survive, they must be outnumbered by
their prey by at least a hundred to one. If each grazing animal and each predatory animal were
represented by a single pair, then either all the grazing animals would be immediately eaten, or the
predatory animals would starve to death, or both. The only other alternative would be for Noah and
his descendants to have enough fresh meat stored to feed generations of lions, tigers, wolves, hyenas,
foxes, eagles, hawks, etc. This scenario is totally preposterous!
Many animals require special diets. Koalas eat only eucalyptus leaves. Aphids require fresh plants.
How would Noah know about these dietary requirements, and how would he obtain food meeting
these requirements?
The logistics of stocking the food and feeding the animals is clearly a complete impossibility for eight
persons! Just shoveling out the manure would a total impossibility; tons of food per day necessarily
creates tons of manure per day!
Unless all those animals happened to be living in the immediate neighborhood (very unlikely,
considering the different habitats of rain forest tree frogs, desert geckos, and polar bears), most of
them would have to travel over large distances to get to the ark, a physical impossibility. Besides,
what could possibly motivate all those frogs, lizards, snakes, salamanders, dragon flies, spiders, ants,
etc to leave their natural habitats and attempt to travel thousands of miles to the ark? How could they
possibly make the journey? How would they know how to get there?
The Bible states in Gen 7:4 that the ark was loaded in 7 days. The nine million species of animals
extant would would have to board at a rate of 30 animals per second!
The creationist claim that diversification has resulted in present-day species being far more numerous
than the number of species in the ark contradicts their claim that evolution of species could not, and
did not, ever take place.
Keeping in mind that hibernation is not merely sleep, but rather a state of suspended animation, just
keeping an animal in the dark will not cause it to hibernate. Most animals do not hibernate under any
conditions, least of all in a ship violently tossed about under catastrophic storm conditions.
How did all the present-day parasites and diseases survive the flood without decimating the host
population?
In spite of all the reported sightings of the ark on Mount Ararat, there hasn’t been a single set of clear
photographs showing the exact location and appearance of the ark. The alleged sightings have never
been verified by any reputable organization, such as the National Geographic Society.
Additional information is available in talk.origins faq: Problems with a Global Flood
Theory of Creation
by Ross L., Creation vs. Evolution II Team Member
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though
they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. Romans 1:19-20.
Many people believe that
the Earth and all the
creatures in it were
created by God. Although
most religions have
creation stories as part of
their beliefs, those who
refer to themselves as
Creationists are mainly
fundamental Protestant
Christians. These
Creationists believe the
version of creation found in the Bible in the book of Genesis. In this account, God created the
Universe, including the Earth and all the creatures in it, in seven days. Most Creationists believe this
means seven twenty-four hour days. Other Christians and Jews believe the seven days symbolize
periods that lasted much longer.
Rather than having life begin in very simple forms – proteins, bacteria, algae, etc., and then gradually
evolve into more complex forms, the theory of creation says that creatures started out as distinct and
separate organisms when God created them. Although these distinct creatures have the capability to
adapt to their surroundings to a certain extent, Creationists do not believe that they change into
completely different and distinct animals through evolution. For example, Creationists do not believe
that single-celled organisms evolved into more complex plants and animals, finally culminating in
modern Sapiens.
Creationists are among the harshest critics of the theory of evolution. They have been instrumental in
pointing out weaknesses in the scientific evidence. What are those weaknesses?
Although there is plenty of evidence for adaptive changes in species (microevolution), we do
not in recorded history see one species becoming an entirely different, more highly evolved
organism. For example, we have no examples in recorded history of a fish becoming an
amphibian or even a bacteria evolving into anything other than a bacteria.
The fossil record does not show the gradual changes that Darwin predicted.
There can be errors in carbon dating and other methods that are used to determine the age of
fossils and the Earth itself.
DNA and RNA comparisons between similar and dissimilar species at times confirm
evolution, but in other circumstances are inconsistent.
Finally, besides criticizing portions of various theories of how life evolved, Creationists are actively
seeking scientific evidence of their own to support the creation account as it is presented in Genesis.