Did modern life on Earth evolve over millions of years, or was it created in the blink of an eye by God?

That's the gist of the debate between scientists and creationists, which has been ongoing ever since
Charles Darwin published his theory in 1859. The scientific evidence is clear: The Earth is about 4.5 billion
years old, and all life evolved from primitive, single-celled organisms.
Nevertheless, Biblical literalists reject this evidence and operate from the viewpoint that the Bible's Book
of Genesis is a historical account of creation. Here's how the battle has played out.
Strictly defined, creationism is based on a literal reading of the Bible's Book of Genesis, which describes
the creation of the world and all the life in it over a period of six days. There are many flavors of
creationists. Young-Earth creationists, including the Australian-born Ham, interpret the Bible to mean that
the Earth was created more or less in its present state about 6,000 years old (In fact, it's about 4.5 billion
years old). Other creationists believe in an older Earth, with species still created separately by God. Finally,
believers in Intelligent Design hold that evolution might occur, but that a deity started or guides the
process. [Top 10 Intelligent Designs (and Creation Myths)]
Advances in geology in the 1700s and 1800s shook the foundations of young-Earth creationism spread by
preachers who interpreted the Bible literally. Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species," published in 1859,
complicated matters further. Now, science was not only shooting holes in the Biblical tale of a young Earth
created in mere days, it was suggesting that God didn't even create all animals and plants.
Perhaps no battle in the creationism versus evolution war is more famous than the Scopes Monkey Trial.
In 1925, Tennessee schoolteacher John Scopes incriminated himself for teaching evolution in a classroom,
purposefully challenging a state law prohibiting evolution from being taught.
The trial was intended to generate publicity, and it worked like a charm. The cast was star-studded:
Famous attorney Clarence Darrow defended Scopes, while the three-time populist Presidential candidate
Williams Jennings Bryan prosecuted. Americans listened to the court proceedings over the radio.
In the end, Scopes was found guilty and fined $100. The Tennessee Supreme Court later overturned the
verdict on a technicality, but upheld the law preventing evolution from being taught. [7 Theories on the
Origin of Life]
After the trial, other states enacted their own anti-evolution laws. But gradually, the anti-evolution
movement lost steam, and evolution snuck back into textbooks.

Evolution Of Man
Evolution Of Man - What is it?
The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from an apelike ancestor that
lived on earth a few million years ago. The theory states that man, through a combination of environmental and genetic
factors, emerged as a species to produce the variety of ethnicities seen today, while modern apes evolved on a separate
evolutionary pathway. Perhaps the most famous proponent of evolutionary theory is Charles Darwin (1809-82) who
authored The Origin of Species (1859) to describe his theory of evolution. It was based largely on observations which he

made during his 5-year voyage around the world aboard the HMS Beagle (1831-36). Since then, mankind's origin has
generally been explained from an evolutionary perspective. Moreover, the theory of man's evolution has been and
continues to be modified as new findings are discovered, revisions to the theory are adopted, and earlier concepts proven
incorrect are discarded.
Evolution Of Man - Concepts in Evolutionary Theory
The currently-accepted theory of the evolution of man rests on three major principles. These principles hinge on the innate
ability which all creatures have to pass on their genetic information to their offspring through the reproductive process. An
alternative explanation for homology is a common designer. According to this reasoning, the similarities in anatomical
features between species point to a blueprint used by a Creator/Designer.
The first tenet is microevolution, the occurrence and build-up of mutations in the genetic sequence of an organism.
Mutations are predominantly random and can occur naturally through errors in the reproductive process or through
environmental impacts such as chemicals or radiation.
The second tenet of evolution is natural selection. Natural selection is a natural mechanism by which the fittest members
of a species survive to pass on their genetic information, while the weakest are eliminated (die off) because they are
unable to compete in the wild. Natural selection is often termed "survival of the fittest" or "elimination of the weakest."
The third tenet is speciation, which occurs when members of a species mutate to the point where they are no longer able
to breed with other members of the same species. The new population becomes a reproductively isolated community that
is unable to breed with its former community. Through speciation, the genes of the new population become isolated from
the previous group.
Evolution Of Man - Scientific Evidence
The theory of evolution of man is supported by a set of independent observations within the fields of anthropology,
paleontology, and molecular biology. Collectively, they depict life branching out from a common ancestor through gradual
genetic changes over millions of years, commonly known as the "tree of life." Although accepted in mainstream science as
altogether factual and experimentally proven, a closer examination of the evidences reveal some inaccuracies and
reasonable alternative explanations. This causes a growing number of scientists to dissent from the Darwinian theory of
evolution for its inability to satisfactorily explain the origin of man.
One of the major evidences for the evolution of man is homology, that is, the similarity of either anatomical or genetic
features between species. For instance, the resemblance in the skeleton structure of apes and humans has been
correlated to the homologous genetic sequences within each species as strong evidence for common ancestry. This
argument contains the major assumption that similarity equals relatedness. In other words, the more alike two species
appear, the more closely they are related to one another. This is known to be a poor assumption. Two species can have
homologous anatomy even though they are not related in any way. This is called "convergence" in evolutionary terms. It is
now known that homologous features can be generated from entirely different gene segments within different unrelated
species. The reality of convergence implies that anatomical features arise because of the need for specific functionality,
which is a serious blow to the concept of homology and ancestry.
Additionally, the evolution of man from ape-like ancestors is often argued on the grounds of comparative anatomy within
the fossil record. Yet, the fossil record indicates more stability in the forms of species than slow or even drastic changes,
which would indicate intermediate stages between modern species. The "missing links" are missing. And unfortunately,
the field of paleoanthropology has been riddled with fraudulent claims of finding the missing link between humans and
primates, to the extent that fragments of human skeletons have been combined with other species such as pigs and apes
and passed off as legitimate. Although genetic variability is seen across all peoples, the process of natural selection

leading to speciation is disputed. Research challenging the accepted paradigm continues to surface raising significant
questions about the certainty of evolution as the origin of man.
Evolution Of Man - The Scrutiny
The theory concerning the evolution of man is under increased scrutiny due to the persistence of gaps in the fossil record,
the inability to demonstrate "life-or-death" determining advantageous genetic mutations, and the lack of experiments or
observations to truly confirm the evidence for speciation. Overall, the evolution of man pervades as the accepted
paradigm on the origin of man within the scientific community. This is not because it has been proven scientifically, but
because alternative viewpoints bring with them metaphysical implications which go against the modern naturalistic
paradigm. Nevertheless, a closer examination of the evidence reveals evolution to be increasingly less scientific and more
reliant upon beliefs, not proof.

Evolution Vs Creation
Evolution vs. Creation: The Great Debate
The Evolution vs. Creation debate is often referred to as the "Great Debate." It's the emotion-packed question of "Origins"
-- why, how, and where did everything come from? 20th century science has made the compelling discovery that, at some
point, the universe began. Both sides of the Great Debate now agree that the universe has not existed eternally. However,
this is where the agreement ends. As far as the "why" and "how" of the "origin event," this is where the division and
contention begin. There are two basic theories in this Great Debate. The first is the historical default - the Creation Model
of Origins. This theory maintains that the intricate design permeating all things implies a Designer. The second theory is
the more recent, atheistic explanation - the Evolution Model of Origins. This theory postulates that the intricate design
permeating all things is a product of random chance and excessive time.
Evolution vs. Creation: The Contentions
Evolution vs. Creation is indeed the Great Debate of our scientific times. In any scientific debate, the theories must be
tested according to the evidence. We propose that the burden of evidence should be upon the Evolutionists, since
Creation has been the historic and inherent default throughout virtually all cultures and religions until roughly the last 200
years. Of course, Evolutionists, who view themselves as the only "scientists" in the debate, insist that the burden of
evidence be upon the Creationists. Evolutionists reason, we cannot see the Creator, we cannot hear the Creator, and we
cannot touch, taste or smell the Creator. Therefore, we are unable to test for the Creator with any form of scientific
equipment developed thus far. Creationists retort, we cannot see, hear, touch, taste, or smell the human mind. We cannot
test for the human mind with any form of scientific equipment developed thus far. When we run an electroencephalogram,
we are measuring salt flow and electrical activity within the human brain. We cannot so much as even locate the human
mind. Yet we watch as human carcasses run about, making order of disorder, conscious decisions according to
subconscious criteria. We see the design and complexity that result from the operation of the brain through the invisible
realm known as the mind. Thus, we know with certainty that the human mind exists. Therefore, it's absolutely logical for
Creationists to postulate the existence of a Creator based upon the same "evidence." The design we see all around us
came from one, grand concept, and such a concept can only come from a complex Mind. Furthermore, the mathematical
and physical laws inherent in all things (including, most dramatically, the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Cause
and Effect) effectively validate this evidentiary claim.
Evolution vs. Creation: Origins
In the Evolution vs. Creation conflict, Evolutionists do quite well in terms of theoretical science, but fail to find empirical
evidence. Evolutionists theorize that the universe, with all that it contains (space, time, matter and energy), exploded from
nothing. This is contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics. Where did space, time, matter and energy come from in the
first place? Thus, for Evolutionists, the ultimate question of Origins remains unsolved. To complicate the Evolutionary

position, this original explosion of everything from nothing is unable to explain all of the complexity and fine-tuning in the
universe, including cosmic "voids" and "clumps", retrograde motion of the galaxies, etc. Despite numerous problems, this
explosion from nothing has been dubbed the "Big Bang" and is the accepted theory among the majority of Evolutionists.
Evolution is a very unique "science." Typically, scientists observe evidentiary data and then formulate their conclusions.
Evolutionists have formulated their conclusion, and now look for the missing data.
Evolution vs. Creation: Complexity
The Evolution vs. Creation debate further seeks to solve the riddle of complexity. Creationists believe the universe was
designed to be complex by an Intelligent Designer. Evolutionists, in their effort to exclude a designer, contend that
complexity has developed from simplicity over time. Evolutionists view time as their solution. However, hard science tells
us that time is the enemy of complexity. This fact has been so well documented that it has obtained the stature of a
physical law, the "Second Law of Thermodynamics."
Evolution vs. Creation: The Resolution
Evolution vs. Creation -- Until Evolutionists find the evidence they've sought since the beginning of the modern
Evolutionary movement about 150 years ago, there is actually no debate at all. Creation is the default. Evolutionists insist
that complexity developed from simplicity despite the contradiction to known physical laws. Moreover, Evolutionists
maintain that this simplicity just sprang into existence without any cause at all. Let's collect the evidence, and then we can
start a debate.

Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor:
the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of
life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures
evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an
organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural
selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate
and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Natural Selection
While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity.
Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary
descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy -- a plausible
mechanism called "natural selection." Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic
mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its
offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same
species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species. Natural selection is the
preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the
naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in
domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time.
Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely...
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "Natural selection acts only by taking advantage
of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though

slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not
possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2]
Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one
composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire
system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece
by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five
basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the
hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work.
Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4]
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology,
biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly
complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist
Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10 -12 grams, each is in
effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular
machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by
man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]
And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of
irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To
suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural
selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]