Creation vs. Evolution

The purpose of this essay is not to prove “Darwinian” evolution, as the writer would be performing a feat already done by others, but to examine a certain track of thought amongst Creation proponents. Specifically their noting certain improbabilities of evolution's ability to “design.” I'll evade defining the individual concepts because they've all been described before, and far better than I could manage, although I'll point out that micro/macro evolution distinction is largely Creationist lingo, as is the “kind” terminology. In the text, I'll refer to evolutionary theory/macro-evolution as “evolution” and creation/intelligent design as “creation”, and proponents of each of them as “evolutionists” and “creationists” respectively. If either of these are offending to either party, suck it up. Also note that creation is a largely moving target, so characterizing their views is difficult to impossible since it's subject to change, as opposed to evolutionary theory, where many of the original tenets set forth by Charles Darwin still exist, albeit some have admittedly changed.

I don't claim to be an expert in the innumerable fields of expertise one needs to properly defend evolutionary theory. Nor do I hold degrees in any of the relevant fields. Many proponents of either evolution or creation have no problems in arguing across broad spectrums of expertise. It's commonplace to see theology majors arguing astrophysics, and vice-versa. The tactful build their arguments based on references to the writings of people with that expertise. As I haven't seen the argument I wish to present in any reference material, I don't have that luxury. That isn't to say it doesn't exist.

Often creationists present certain, extreme, adaptations as...

... middle of paper ...

...y saying that several modern species of animal sport vicious teeth and yet are vegetarian. Another article I find illuminating is an Answers In Genesis article in which it is claimed that the South American Pirahna ate vegetation. We find these claims at such odds with mainstream science that it's difficult to reconcile these, especially if you are partial to a literal reading of Genesis. So, to crack this impasse, we look to genetics for the hard and fast answers. This is where the layperson drops out, grabs a sandwich and watches some television.

If a creationist and an evolutionist sequenced the DNA of something, they would both arrive at a genetically identical value, excepting any lab problems which are negligible. This is a useful synergy of facts, since many of the other fields, such as archealogy and morphology, a bias in interpretation can be claimed.