Tabrizy 1

Cezar Tabrizy

Mrs. Shontere

English 2

11 January 11, 2011

The Truth of Evolution

Since the idea of Evolution has been espoused, there have existed many

counterarguments to it, such as Creationism. Creationism does not directly attack

Evolution, because it explains a completely different scientific mechanism. It is the belief

that a deity created the universe and all life within it. A fairly simple concept to grasp,

Creationism uses it to refute Evolution, the fact that explains the way in which life has

changed over billions of years. Evolution is mistakenly believed to theorize an

explanation for the origin of life. This is a fallacious statement, because Evolution has

nothing to do with the origin of life. It has to do with adaptation and what changes as a

result. Evolution is a scientific fact that need not be challenged by Creationism,

something without any evidence to support itself.

A statement commonly made by Creationists is that Creation-science is scientific

and therefore should be taught in public schools. This would not be an ideal course

because Creation "science" is not scientific in reality, it is a purely religious ideology.

Any religion could claim their belief to be scientific in order to bolster it so that it may

become a course in school curriculum, but such a claim bears no truth. Religion is, in

many ways, contrary to science. It does not rely on logic and tested hypotheses for its

fact, it relies purely on faith. The result of Creationism being taught in public schools

would be rather dire, because science explains that which has been unexplainable in
 Tabrizy 2

previous times. The teaching of Creation would go against the very purpose of science

and lead people away from the factual and towards the non-factual. It could be argued

that this would be a positive result, because only the students with sharply analytical

minds would be drawn towards science and away from religion, but the idea of teaching

Creation in science classes is still quite naive. This Creationist point of argument is a

relatively weak one, and would not yield a majority of constructive results if enacted.

Another relatively common argument for Creation is: Since evolution does not

have "sufficient evidence", Creation must be accurate. This is an utter fallacy. Ignoring

that evolution is a fact, for the sake of argument, it can be assumed that because evolution

is wrong, Creationism is right? This is very illogical. Claiming a lack of evidence on one

side does not increase the veracity of the other side in any conceivable way. In addition,

if evolution is wrong, that doesn't necessarily mean anything for Creation. There are other

variables and other theories. Any and/or none of them could be correct, so Creationists

display a very weak argument in this respect. While not a scientific refutation as well as

the previously mentioned argument, these arguments are used in the same manner as a

scientific argument. They are meant to increase the likelihood that Creationism is the

truth and that evolution is absolutely wrong. Which, in itself, is an incorrect statement.

Another point of Creationism that can be readily refuted is that Evolutionary

Theory is a religion, and therefore should not be taught in science classes. This statement

does nothing more than insult the intelligence of its receiver. Calling Evolutionary

Theory a religion broadens the definition of religion to a point of absolute

meaninglessness. Evolutionary Theory is something that is scientific because it relies on

being a testable body of knowledge that is open to rejection or confirmation. Religion is

 Tabrizy 3

not either of those things. This argument is very obtuse, and is backed up with no

educated affirmation of any kind. Creation and Evolution are polar opposite theories, that

rely on similarly opposite criteria to be accepted as proven.

Another very strange argument for Creation is along these lines: Everything must

come from itself, (everything must be created by something else) therefore the cause of

intelligence must be intelligent. Regression of this logic leads to the "first" causal

variable- which is deemed god. This is incredibly flawed logic. Following it can lead to

other questions: What caused the existence of god? He of course could not have come out

of thin air-such a claim is preposterous. Or, why would nature have a supernatural

creator? And if there is an intelligent creator, is this god the exact god created of

Christianity, or of any other religion? And why must it be a being? Why not a small

organism, or something similar? This argument only creates more questions out of itself,

and proves nothing. The lack of a current, one-hundred-percent accurate scientific proof

of the origin of life does not automatically prove that Creation is really the unconditional

truth.

The scientific "evidence" against evolution is as follows: 1. "All life appears to be

designed, and evolutionists have failed to adequately explain why. Adaptation to

environmental changes, mutations, and natural selection has not validated

macroevolution." This is a nonsensical argument. Natural selection, adaptation to

environmental changes, and mutation are the principles of evolution. The fact that life

appears to be intelligently designed has no bearing on the truth that evolution presents.

The reason to as to why all life appears to be intelligently designed does not have a
 Tabrizy 4

definitive, accurate answer. This, however, does nothing to the theory of evolution, and it

is completely random.

Creationists often say that there are no transitional species in the fossil record that

prove Evolution. In fact, there are many. For example, the duck-billed platypus and spiny

anteater are clearly transitional between reptiles, mammals, and birds. This would end

such an argument, but it does not because when Creationists are presented with a

transitional species, they continue to as the same question. "What is the transitional

species between those two?" It doesn't makes any sense. A transitional species does not

have a transition species. It is called a transitional species because it is the only one of its

kind. So asking the same question over and over again is in no way an argument, more of

a way to avoid a genuine argument.

It is claimed that if Evolution is gradual, there should be no gaps in between

species, and taxonomy is impossible. This is not true because Evolution is not gradual

100% of the time. Often times, Evolution has very spontaneous change, and it was never

that there would be no gaps. Besides, gaps do no more to prove Creation than gaps in

documented history do to prove that there weren't any civilizations in existence during

those times. This is not an argument for Creation, it is a claim against Evolution, that is

still very false.

In conclusion, the debate between Creation and Evolution has been going on for a

very long time, and still has not been resolved, even though it should have been just as

long ago. However, the debate heatedly continues. Despite the fact that Evolution has

been proven a countless amount of times with mountains of empirical evidence, it seems

that ignorance is the sharpest sword in this battle. Believers in Creationism openly reject
 Tabrizy 5

all presented evidence, then demand more evidence because they don't believe that any

has been presented to them. What is most strange about this situation is that the burden of

proof is never on Creationists. It is on the Evolutionists, who have already presented

plenty of evidence, yet Creationists demand more and in no way present any evidence of

their own. Their faith is presumed to be all the evidence that is needed. This claim is

preposterous, along with all of other arguments for Creation. Humans look at the world in

its grandeur, and wonder what they see, and how it got there. They either attribute all

mystery and wonder of the universe to the work of god, or search for an answer with

logic and reason. Rejection of fact will be the ultimate downfall of the human race. In

summation, there is one thing to be said. "There is nothing worse than aggressive

stupidity." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

 Tabrizy 6

Works Cited

"Evolution." pbs.org. Clear Blue Sky Productions, Inc., 2001. Web.

23 Jan 2011. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/>.

"Understanding Evolution." Teaching Evolution. National Science

Foundation, 2001 Web. 23 Jan 2011.

<http://evolution.berkeley.edu/>.

"Evolution." Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, 22 Jan

2011. Web. 23 Jan 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution>.

"Darwin's Theory of Evolution: A Theory In Crisis."All About

Science. All about Science, 2002. Web. 23 Jan 2011.

<http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/>.

"Theory of Evolution." All About The Journey. All About The

Journey, 2002. Web. 23 Jan 2011.

<http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/theory-of-evolution.htm>.

"The Short Proof of Evolution." records.viu.ca. Viu.Ca, 2005. Web.

23 Jan 2011.

<http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm>.