Evolution And Creation
Ever since the publication of Charles Darwin\'s The Origin of Species was
published, there has been an ongoing debate between science and religion.

Scientists have formulated many theories as to the origins of man and to the
creation of the earth, whereas religious groups have one main creation theory,
based on the "Genesis" story of The Bible. These theories, however,
are not the cause of the debate because the different theories are simply myths
meant to explain the unknown. The debate is caused by different belief systems.

The main difference between creationists and scientists is the way they fight
this debate. Creationists have developed their own science: Creation Science.

Creation scientists look to prove that creation is right and science is wrong,
providing selective interpretations of the fossil record. But their
interpretations are exaggerated and foolish. Creationists will pick one
scientific theory and do everything they can to point out it\'s flaws,
disregarding what they can\'t prove wrong. They will often use emotions to
control the public to their side. They spend their time trying to discover false
evolution rather than teaching their beliefs to the general public. The theory
of evolution removes humans from the center of the universe, and religious
followers can\'t believe that their God, who created us in his image (Bible, 2),
would allow that. The creationist arguments can be summed up in one example from
the Morris -Parker book. They state "Evolution is claimed to be\'scientific,\' and still going on, so it seems like it should be observable and
measurable. Yet after 150 years of intense study of biological variations,
evolutionists are still completely in the dark about the supposed mechanism of
evolution. This fact surely is cause for beginning to doubt the validity of the
very concept of evolution (303)." The use of words such as \'claimed\',

\'should be\', and \'supposed\' all are very powerful words, but they don\'t give
examples as to where and who claimed or supposed these things. Nor do they seem
to understand evolution. In 150 years, the evolutionary change that would occur
is insignificant. It is very difficult to see such changes in such a short
period of time. They are completely ignoring the evolutionary timescale. Also,
they don\'t acknowledge that biologists have seen evolution occur, in the case of
moth\'s wings changing color for protection against their prey . Morris and

Parker are also blatantly attacking evolution as a science and as a fact.

Evolutionists mainly spend their time in the debate defending themselves. They
teach the correct evolution (no, we did not evolve from monkeys). It is at times
difficult to teach correct evolution to the public because the details of
evolution can be very technical. For example, saying that evolution is caused by
molecular variation of mitochondrial DNA throughout periods of statis and
anastatis in a multigenerational time scheme would confuse and frustrate the
general public. Perhaps the reason why creation scientists have so much
influence is because the average American knows very little if any about science
theories and thought. The public would much prefer emotional appeal over
technical details. Unfortunately for scientists, most of them don\'t know how to
speak emotionally and get their information across at the same time. Simply
throwing out facts and figures does not make a case. Mirsky has an example that
may catch the attention of the creation scientists. He said, "these are
strange times, when a controlled chain reaction of uranium 235 atoms can be used
to convert water to steam in order to drive turbines to generate electricity
used to provide power to a television set to that a Jimmy Swaggart can reach a
fallow mind with the news that Earth is really only a few thousand years old
." Mirsky\'s clever quote can be spiritless to religious believers, but he
does make a very good point. Yes, some scientists use clever slander to show
false creation, but the majority stay well within the regions of what they know
about. Scientists generally behave differently when defending their theories to
creationists. Instead of trying to disprove creation and interest the common
people, evolutionary scientists try to piece together the past and explain why
we evolve in the ways that we do. Although both sides of this issue present well
thought out arguments, they are still spending too much of their time fighting
against each other rather than furthering their own knowledge. If they stop
criticizing each other and focus their attention on gathering and processing
information, they could find the proof that would end this debate. Or perhaps
faith should be kept in the home and