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 church and true science should be kept in
the laboratories. Because it’s not likely evolutionists will convince
creationists that evolution is a fact, and nothing creationists say will change
what evolutionists believe either. People will believe what they choose.
Religious believers have a tendency to believe that only their theories can be
correct. Scientists believe their own theories, but will abandon them if a new
theory comes along with better evidence to support it. Creationists only have
one source to prove their theory correct: the genesis story. They believe simply
through faith in The Bible. Scientists, on the other hand, have an abundance of
fossil skulls, fauna, and other biological and ecological specimens to prove
that evolution exists. Scientists work to prove their theories wrong in order to
find the true answers. The creation science argument has constantly said that
what they do is use scientific evidence to show that creation happened, but what
they are really doing is trying to prove evolution wrong. "Evolution,
properly understood, can only enrich and add to our faith in a loving, dynamic
creator. Evolution does indeed exist, but only because God created it.” A
major argument is that if evolution is correct, it is purely an accident. The
scientific claim is that the origin of the universe and everything within it
just randomly happened. It is suggested that creation science is a
"controlled accident", using the hand of the creator as the
controller. However, instead of examining the actual evidence, creationists
explain the scientific side of the issue by taking small bits and pieces of
evidence and quotes from scientists to back up their claims. Within the
scientific group, evolution has been widely accepted as fact. It exists and has
been proven time and time again with examples such as the jaw bones of reptiles
migrating over thousands of years into the ear bones of mammals and the human
anatomy showing that we were once long ago quadrupeds. Theories are in debate
about the processes of evolution. The only thing that is being questioned and
has not been proven is the history of species. For example, human evolutionary
theories have gone through a great history of change because of new evidence. At
first it was thought that Neanderthals, a prehistoric human ancestor from
Europe, were part of the lineage that led to modern humans. Now it is believed
that they are strictly a side group that became extinct. Discovery of new
fossils more similar to humans but from the time period of Neanderthals have
made scientists question their original beliefs, but they don't question
evolution itself. Theories surrounding the processes of evolution will
undoubtedly continue to change with political movements and new evidence, but it
will take a lot to disprove evolution whether it is caused by natural forces or
by some supreme being, it still exists. "Life on earth-however it began-has
evolved and will continue to do so, impervious to the carping of member of one
religious sect on one planet in one minor solar system on the edge of one
galaxy. In order for this debate to ever end, some common ground must be
reached. Either one theory or the other has to be ultimately proved beyond the
shadow of a doubt. But, there is an incredibly small chance of that happening.
Even if it were to happen, to prove either side, there would still be
disbelievers and those who think the evidence is a hoax. 
Bibliography
Bible, The 1995. King James Version. Harper Paperbacks, New York. Conroy,
Glenn C. 1997. Reconstructing Human Origins. WW Norton & Company, New York.
Dawkins, Richard. 1995. River Out of Eden. BasicBooks, HaperCollins, New York.
Mirsky, Steven D. 1988. "Standing on the Shoulders of Midgets" The
Humanist, Jan/Feb 1988(11, 42). Morris, Henry M. and Parker, Gary E. 1987. What
is Creation Science?. Master Books, El Cajon, CA.